&EPA
United States Region 6
Environmental Protection 1201 Elm Street
Agency Dallas, TX 75270
Water '
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Lakeviews
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
GRANT NO. C-05-0441-01-0
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
DALLAS, TEXAS
JANUARY 1979
ADLENFHARRISW
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
The proposed project was initiated to provide waste-
water collection and treatment for the Lakeview, Arkansas area
which currently relies on individual septic tank systems. The
main concerns and issues discussed in the EIS are:
the extent of existing and potential ground- and
surface-water contamination and related health hazards from
septic tank systems;
cost-effective alternatives to the proposed action
including "no action" and upgraded on-site disposal systems;
the disruptive effects of project construction on
the community;
cost and economic effects;
the effects of discharge on water quality and aquatic
life;
aesthetic effects on fishing and tourism;
the secondary effects of induced development and in-
creased population density; and
effects on archeological resources.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Lakeview is a small and relatively new community on
Bull Shoals Lake in north central Arkansas. Lakeview is near
Bull Shoals Dam in an area of the Ozark Mountains with flat-
topped hills and steep-sided valleys along the White River.
Lakeview is a recreation and retirement area with a population
which is principally interested in the benefits of its lakeside
location.
-------
The 1977 population equivalent of the proposed
project area is about 1,350, which includes incorporated
Lakeview and certain residential and recreation areas outside
the town limits. Lakeview and the surrounding region have
grown rapidly in population because of scenic beauty, recrea-
tional opportunities, a quiet atmosphere, mild climate, at-
tractive residential developments, and low taxes.
The White River in the Lakeview area is almost
completely controlled by the operation of Bull Shoals Dam, and
there are large flow fluctuations depending especially upon
power generation. The Bull Shoals Lake and White River water
quality is generally excellent. Cold water releases from the
Dam have eliminated most of the native fish in a 100-mile
stretch of the White River; however, an intensive trout-stocking
program has created the largest and most productive put-and-take
trout stream in the Nation. Bull Shoals Lake is heavily used
for recreation including water-contact recreation. Incidents
of septic tank effluent surfacing and runoff to the lake have
occurred, but obvious local pollution effects or discernible
water quality changes have not been noted at lake and river
monitoring stations.
Ground water generally lies at about 110-ft depth in
the Lakeview plateau area and this shallow fractured-!imestone
aquifer is used for many small public and private well sup-
plies. Underlying formations with much greater yields are
used for larger public wells. Much of the Lakeview area is
served by a water association which obtains its water from
another lake source via the City of Mountain Home, 15 miles
away.
Wells sampled in the Lakeview area indicate elevated
levels of nitrate and chloride in the shallow aquifer near the
-------
tourist and commercial center. Contamination from on-site
disposal systems is strongly indicated since there are no
major agricultural or other pollution sources in the vicinity.
The bacteriological results were unsatisfactory (high coliform
bacteria counts) for most of the well systems sampled, al-
though the cause cannot necessarily be attributed to aquifer
contamination by septic tank systems.
The important factors influencing the performance of
on-site disposal systems include soils, topography, geology,
ground water, and density of development. The topography is
characterized by carbonate rock, sinkholes, subterranean
drainage, solution channels, and caves. Leachate from septic
tank systems percolates through this subterranean drainage
system and will eventually reach the aquifer. The depth to
rock is highly irregular in the Lakeview area because of the
susceptibility of carbonate rock to solution and weathering.
More than the 6-ft minimum required for septic tank systems is
generally expected on the flat ridge area, with the steep
slopes having less cover. Nearly all of the Lakeview area
soil types are rated as having severe limitations for septic
tank system installation because of slow percolation, swelling
characteristics, shallow bedrock, rock content, and slope.
A survey was made to determine the extent of the
septic-tank-system problems. Survey results indicated that
moderate residential and serious commercial problems have been
experienced in the Lakeview area. Most lots in the Lakeview
area are 1/2-acre or less in size. Numerous septic tank
systems, marginal soil conditions, rapid growth and develop-
ment on rather small lots, and an aquifer formation vulnerable
to pollution combine to produce public health and water-quality Rev'd*
problems.
* Revised from Draft
i i i
-------
C. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Several alternatives were evaluated including no-
action, upgrading on-site disposal systems, constructing a
municipal collection and treatment system, and participating
in a regional system.
The no-action alternative will result in continued
installation of individual septic tank systems to accommodate
growth. Septic tank use can neither be appreciably altered
nor limited under existing controls. Increasing pollution
problems can be expected which will eventually affect the
public health and lessen the attractiveness of the area.
These conditions will mandate remedial measures for wastewater
management, restricted growth, curtailed water uses, or other
action. The no-action alternative will have the benefit of
eliminating or deferring project related environmental impacts
as well as any major public investment in wastewater facili-
ties in the area, but will fail to address the basic objectives
of pollution control and public health protection.
Properly operated and upgraded on-site disposal
systems will lessen the occurrence of absorption-field failure
and associated health and pollution problems; however, in-
creased local ground water contamination from nitrate and
chloride will continue in general proportion to growth.
Aeration units or intermittent sand filters are the most
effective means of upgrading septic tank systems, but are
expensive. Cluster systems are an alternative for isolated
developments in problem areas, but providing such systems for
a static community is more economical and manageable than for
a community as Lakeview with its rapid growth and seasonal
tourist population. The capital, operating, and land costs
for upgraded on-site systems in the Lakeview area will be high
-------
and long-term reliance on such systems will have serious
economic and environmental drawbacks, and will pose many
management difficulties as well.
There is no existing or planned regional wastewater
system in the area, and the low population density of much of
the region and rugged and rocky terrain make a regional system
economically infeasible for the foreseeable future.
A wastewater collection-and-treatment system for the
town of Bull Shoals (three miles across the dam from Lakeview)
is nearing the construction stage. Connecting these two
systems, while possibly cost-effective, appears to be infeasible Rev'd*
because of community desires, timing, and health concern about
routing raw wastewater across the White River.
Water reuse is not a viable alternative in the
Lakeview area because of the abundant high-quality water
resources available and the lack of potential users. Land
application is a possible alternative to treatment and dis-
charge; however, potentially suitable sites are very limited
and a cost advantage is unlikely.
The treatment and discharge alternatives are a
contact-stabilization activated-sludge plant followed by dis-
infection and sand filtration; a trick!ing-filter plant followed
by disinfection and sand filtration; and an aerated lagoon fol-
lowed by sedimentation, disinfection, and sand filtration. The
aerated lagoon system was selected as the most practicable because
of its proven ability to meet effluent standards, simplicity, ease
of operation, and low capital and operating costs. Chemical precipi-
tation and dechlorination or other means of disinfection will be
required by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
The proposed system is expected to meet White River effluent require-
ments. Sludge removal and burial will be required at 10- to 20-year
intervals.
* Revised from Draft
-------
An alternative treatment plant site with discharge
to Bull Shoals Lake was rejected because of its need for added
nutrient-removal treatment, its proximity to heavily used
recreation and residential areas, and costly pumping require-
ments for serving areas below the dam.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ERA'S PROPOSED ACTION TO AWARD
ADDITIONAL GRANTS
The proposed treatment plant is designed to serve
3,000 persons at 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for an
average wastewater flow of 300,000 gal per day (gpd) in the
1995 design year. The present (1977) wastewater flow is esti-
mated at 135,000 gpd, based upon a population equivalent of
1,350 persons at 100 gpcd. The collection system will serve
the Town of Lakeview, Edgewood Bay, Leisure Hills, Bull Shoals
State Park, the Lakeview Recreation Area, and the Gaston Road
area. It will consist of about 90,000 linear feet (Tin ft) of
8- and 10-inch gravity collectors, four pump stations and
11,300 Tin ft of force-main, and a main line to the treatment
plant consisting of 16,500 Tin ft of 12-inch gravity sewer.
The treatment plant will require about 8 acres of
land. Unit processes of flow measurement, bar screening,
aerated lagoons, secondary settling, disinfection, and rapid
sand filtration will achieve a high degree of treatment. The
total cost of the proposed system is estimated at $3,227,000. Rev'd*
The average monthly cost per household unit, including the
cost of the private sewer line hook-up and filling existing
septic tanks with gravel, will be about $13.00 initially and
decrease to about $7.03 as customers are added over the design
period. The cost of the project will not be an unreasonable
economic burden for most residents, although the monthly
charge will cause financial difficulties for some.
* Revised from Draft; cost estimates and impacts updated.
vi
-------
Constructing the proposed project will take about
one year. If the project proceeds in a localized step-by-step
manner, and reasonable precautions and mitigative measures are
taken, the short-term adverse effects on water and air quality
and the biologic environment will be minor. There will be
localized short-term noise, community disruption, and incon-
venience even with mitigative measures. Lakeview and the
region will benefit economically by construction employment
opportunities and secondary economic stimulation.
The primary long-term water-quality benefits will be
protecting and improving gound water quality and assuring that
future degradation of surface waters, as well as ground water,
from nonpoint septic tanks sources will be largely controlled
in the Lakeview area. Health hazards from contaminated well
water supplies will be reduced, and unsanitary effluent-surfacing
from malfunctioning on-site disposal systems will be eliminated.
The main biological concerns are the possible long-term effects
of the effluent discharge on the important White River trout
fishery. With dechlorination, the Lakeview discharge will
have a minimal effect on trout and other aquatic species. The
adverse visual effects of the treatment plant will be minimized
by landscaping.
Two archeologically important sites, were identified
in the vicinity of the proposed plant. Adverse archeological
effects will be avoided by shifting the treatment plant site a
short distance to the west. The contractor will be alerted to
watch for evidence of prehistoric occupation during construction
in the valley.
The secondary effects of the project on growth and
development will not be great within the project design period,
but the ultimate rate of development and density will be
vn
-------
altered because of increased value and the accelerated develop-
ment of unplatted areas, and avoidance of future sanitary and
environmental growth-constraints from septic tank systems.
With or without the project, Lakeview will experience rapid
growth because of its basic attractions and available develop-
ment sites.
E. COMMENTS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED
The Draft EIS was made available to the following
Federal, state, and local interests for review and comment.
Received
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation X
US Department of Agriculture X
US Department of Commerce X
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare X
US Department of Interior X
US Department of Transportation
US Army Corps of Engineers X
International Boundary and Water Commission
Federal Energy Administration X
Federal Power Commission
Energy Research and Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
State of Arkansas X
Cities and Counties in Project Area X
Environmental and Conservation Associations
Organizations and Civic Groups X
Businesses and Individuals X
News Media
A public hearing was held on Monday, August, 21, 1978,
in the Community Building, Lakeview, Arkansas.
vm
-------
Draft Statement in Federal Register July 24, 1978.
Final Statement to EPA
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Problems and Issues i
B. Environmental Setting i
C. Alternatives Evaluated iv
D. Environmental Impacts of EPA's Proposed Action
to Award Additional Grants vi
E. Comments Requested and Received viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Issues 2
1.3 Federal Policy 3
2. PROBLEMS
2.1 On-Site Systems 5
2.2 Water Quality and Public Health 7
2.3 Growth and Associated Wastewater
Problems 10
3. ALTERNATIVES
3.1 No Action 12
3.2 Upgrading On-Site Systems 14
3.3 Regional Wastewater System or
Connection to Bull Shoals Plant 24
3.4 Municipal Wastewater System Design
Alternatives 25
3.5 Alternatives Available to EPA 31
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4.1 Treatment System 33
4.2 Collection System 34
4.3 Land and Operation and Maintenance
Requirements 34
4.4 Construction Schedule 35
4.5 Costs 35
-------
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EPA's PROPOSED ACTION Page
5.1 Geology, Soils, and Topography 37
5.1.1 Effects of Construction on Geology,
Soils,, and Topography 37
5.1.2 Effects of Operation on Geology,
Soils, and Topography 38
5.2 Hydrology 38
5.2.1 Surface Water Setting 38
5.2.2 Ground Water Setting 40
5.2.3 Effects of Construction on
Hydro!ogic Elements 41
5.2.4 Effects of Operation on
Hydro!ogic Elements 42
5.2.5 Reliability Factors 44
5.3 Biology 45
5.3.1 Terrestrial Setting 45
5.3.2 Aquatic Setting 46
5.3.3 Effects of Construction on Fish
and Wildlife 48
5.3.4 Effects of Construction on Vegetation 49
5.3.5 Effects of Operation on Fish and
Wildlife 50
5.4 Socio-Economics 53
5.4.1 Socio-Economic Setting 53
5.4.2 Effects of Construction on
Socio-Economic Elements 57
5.4.3 Effects of Operation on
Socio-Economic Elements 58
5.5 Air and Sound Quality 65
5.5.1 Effects of Construction on
Air and Sound Quality 65
5.5.2 Effects of Operation on
Air and Sound Quality . 66
5.6 Archeology and History 67
5.6.1 Effects of Construction on
Archeology and History 67
5.6.2 Effects of Operation on
Archeology and History 68
6. COORDINATION
6.1 Coordination and Public Participation 69
6.2 Correspondence During Draft EIS Preparation 69
6.3 Review Process and Preparation of Final
EIS 70
-------
Page
Literature Cited and Other References Consulted 162
Appendix A - Correspondence During Draft EIS Preparation A
xn
-------
: Follows
Exhibits Page
1. Lakeview, Arkansas Location Map 5
2. Soils Map 6
3. Permeability and Subsurface Feaures 6
4. Topography 6
5. Septic Systems Survey 7
6. Septic Systems Survey Summary 7
7. Ground Water Quality 8
8. On-Site Systems Performance 16
9. On-Site Systems Costs 17
10. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Connecting
the Lakeview and Bull Shoals Sewer Systems 25
10A. Alternatives Comparison 32
11. Schematic of Treatment Facility 33
12. Preliminary Layout of Proposed System 34
13. Financing and Cost of Proposed System 35
14. Water Quality - White River Below Bull Shoals Dam 39
15. Water Quality - Bull Shoals Lake and White River 39
16. Vegetative Communities . . : 45
17. Lakeview, Arkansas Population Data 55
18. Population Trends of Surrounding Towns 55
19. Land Use in Lakeview Area 56
20. Zoning and Detailed Land Use 56
21. Recreational Visitors at Lakeview Area Facilities 63
xm
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(FWPCA), was enacted to restore and maintain the integrity of
the Nation's waters. Because municipal sewage is a major
source of water pollution, Section 201 of the law provided
Federal grant assistance (up to 75% of project costs) to
municipalities for the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awards
Construction Grants in a three-step process: 1) initial
planning, 2) detailed design, and 3) actual construction. In
addition to providing grant funds, EPA (or the delegated State
agency) issues permits for all pollutant discharges into the
Nation's water. These National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits require compliance with all applicable
effluent limitations.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental
impact statements (EIS) on major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. Section
511(c)(l) of FWPCA requires that NEPA apply to the awarding of
grants for public wastewater treatment systems under Section
201 of the same act. EPA has determined that the funding of
the proposed wastewater treatment facilities for Lakeview
constitutes a Federal action requiring the preparation of an
EIS. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was issued on
June 30, 1977.
-------
1.2 ISSUES
The major issues concerned with wastewater management
planning in Lakeview are as follows:
a. The severity of septic tank system problems and the
conditions for on-site disposal in the Lakeview area
need to be further defined.
b. Possible public health hazards and water quality
degradation from septic tank systems in the Lakeview
area need further evaluation.
c. The alternatives for upgrading on-site disposal
systems may be more cost-effective than constructing
the proposed collection and treatment system.
d. The cost of the proposed collection and treatment
system may be too great for the local residents.
The estimated monthly sewer charge has not been
presented, and some consider construction cost
estimates optimistically low. The large number of
persons with limited fixed incomes is cited in
support of this view.
e. The issue of the sewage system's effect on the
amount and density of development and the desir-
ability of such growth is of great concern. Lower-
density development in accordance with proper septic
tank disposal-requirements may be preferable.
f. The current water-use estimates need further evalua-
tion. Also, whether several jurisdictions outside
the Lakeview incorporated area will participate in
the project as planned is unconfirmed. These juris-
dictions include the Corps of Engineers Lakeview
Recreation Area, Bull Shoals State Park, and the
Edgewood Bay and Leisure Hills developments.
-------
g. Project effects, including damage to foliage, streets,
driveways, and yards; the noise and disruption from
extensive blasting; effects on archeological resources;
damage to the fishing and tourism industry on the
White River because of the discharge and visual
effects of the proposed sewage treatment plant; and
possible surface and ground water pollution from
sewer leakage, particularly where the lines will be
laid in excavated rock very close to Bull Shoals
Lake, are of concern.
The project's direct environmental effects are
important, but the fundamental issues concern the project's
economic and environmental justification as compared with
continued use of on-site disposal systems, and the secondary
effects relating to growth and development.
1.3 FEDERAL POLICY
The current EPA policy on construction grant facility
plan requirements for new sewage collection systems is discussed
below. (EPA, 1977c.)
a. Grant Eligibility
Communities existing on October 18, 1972, may be
eligible for new sewage collection systems under FWPCA. A
community includes any area with substantial human habitation
and, for grant eligibility, the bulk (generally, two-thirds)
of the sewer system flow design-capacity should be for waste-
waters originating from the October 18, 1972, population.
Treatment works funded under the grants program must also
represent the most cost-effective alternative.
A population density of 1.7 persons per acre (one
household for every two acres) meets the requirement for
substantial human habitation, and density is evaluated block-
by-block or by areas of five acres or less. Densities of less
than one household for every two acres rarely result in serious
localized pollution or public health problems from using
-------
properly operated on-site systems and are not considered
substantial habitation warranting collection sewers.
EPA has become increasingly concerned over the past Rev'd*
few years with the high cost and energy consumption in many
communities with wastewater treatment facilities which must
achieve levels of treatment beyond secondary treatment. Grant
funding of projects requiring treatment more stringent than
secondary is receiving more scrutiny to insure that these effluent
requirements are justifiableo Due to the necessity to maintain
the extreme high quality of the White River at the discharge site,
the Region is fully satisfied that treatment more stringent than
secondary is justifiable at Lakeview, Arkansas.
b. Cost-Effectiveness
New collector sewers should be funded only when
existing on-site disposal systems are creating a public health
problem, contaminating ground water, or violating point-source
discharge requirements. Specific documentation of these
problems and malfunctioning disposal systems, as well as
discussions of limiting site-characteristics such as geology,
soil permeability, topography, and ground water levels are
required.
The alternatives to be evaluated for cost-effective-
ness include but are not limited to measures to improve opera-
tion and maintenance of existing septic tanks, new septic tanks,
holding tanks and "honey wagons," upgrading septic tanks with
mound systems and alternate leaching fields, cluster systems,
water conservation, and limited-area sewer service.
c. Disclosure of Costs and Implementation
Public notice must be given of the estimated costs
for collection system projects, including monthly charges for
operation, maintenance, and debt service. The overall policy
applies to new grant applications for projects including
collection systems, and the cost-effectiveness requirements
apply to projects such as Lakeview for which the Step 1 Plan
is yet to be approved.
* Revised from Draft 4
-------
2. PROBLEMS
The proposed project was initiated to provide waste-
water collection and treatment for the Lakeview area in north
central Arkansas, (see Exhibit 1) which currently relies on
individual septic tank systems. There are about 375 septic
tank systems in the project area based on the number of housing
units and commercial establishments. Important factors in-
fluencing the performance of the on-site disposal systems
include soil characteristics, topography, geology, ground
water, and density of development. The principal public
health concerns from septic tank disposal systems relate to
unsanitary conditions from effluent surfacing, back-up problems,
and contamination of surface and ground water, particularly,
drinking water supplies and contact-recreation waters.
Regulations under the 1977 Arkansas Sewage Disposal
Systems Act have superseded the Department of Health Bulletin
#9 "Septic Tank Systems." The public policy and purposes of
the Act include eliminating and preventing health hazards by
regulating individual sewage disposal systems and to encourage
the use of community sewerage systems when economically
feasible wherever density of development or the lack of
acceptable soils make individual sewage systems impractical.
2.1 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Adequate soils are required for satisfactory septic
tank systems. Field percolation test results are generally in
the 12- to 20-minute range, which is within the 45-minute
limit required by the Department of Health for septic tank
systems. Field tests, however, are not directly comparable to
the controlled Soil Conservation Service tests which are run
-------
MISSOURI
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
EXHIBIT 1
LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
LOCATION MAP
-------
in the laboratory because of variations in the test, time of
year, location, and the person making the test. All of the
Lakeview area soil types, except the Healing silt found near
the White River, are rated by the Soil Conservation Service as
having severe limitations for septic tank system installation
because of slow percolation, swelling characteristics, shallow
bedrock, rock content, and slope. (See Exhibit 2.) Several
of the soils have a heavy clay or other dense layer (fragipan)
so that the top two feet may percolate satisfactorily, but further
percolation downward is hindered, particularly during wet
seasons, when the clays become saturated and swell. This can
cause septic tank effluent-surfacing-
The depth to rock is highly irregular in the Lakeview;
area because of the susceptibility of carbonate rock to both
solution and weathering. More than the 6-ft minimum required
for septic tank systems is generally expected on the flat
ridge area with the steep slopes having less cover. Contractors'
reports of a minimum 6-ft soil cover may not always describe
the entire absorption-field area. The topography is character-
ized by carbonate rock, sinkholes, subterranean drainage,
solution channels, and caves. Leachate from septic tank
systems percolates through this subterranean drainage system
and will eventually reach a ground water aquifer. (See
Exhibits 3 and 4.)
A survey was made in September and October, 2,977, to
determine the extent of septic-tank-system problems, with
emphasis on identifying systems which have had problems.
Baxter County Health Department records were reviewed and a
field survey was made of the condition of about 50 septic tank
systems. Information on past problems such as odor, runoff,
and the tank cleaning-and-maintenance history was collected
-------
SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS RATINGS'
//
tn
OWWK KM.C
717
761
767
771 OR TO
786
809
CG
NT
1-31
C 3-8J
P 8-12?,
E 12-20?
U 3-81
R 8-20*
S 20-HOX
LINOSIDE WILT)
TONTI (CHERTY SILT)
NIXA (VERY CHERTY SILT)
GASSVILLE (VERY CHERTY SILT)
CAPTINA (SILT)
HEALING (SILT)
ARKANA - MOKO
NIXA - GASSVILLE
SEVERE (FLOODING. IETNESS. DEEP) • "
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY. DEPTH TO ROCK APPROXIMATELY 81 TO 10']
SEVERE (PERCS SLOHLY. OFTEN STEEP SLOPES. DEPTH TO ROCK APPROXIMATELY «' TO 12')
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY. OFTEN STEEP SLOPES. DEPTH TO ROCK APPROXIMATELY 6' TO 12')
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY. SHALLOW DEPTH TO ROCK. CLAY LAYER AT 2")
SLIGHT TO SEVERE (DEPENDING ON FLOODING)
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY. SHALLOI DEPTH TO ROCK. OFTEN STEEP SLOPES)
SEE RESPECTIVE SOILS
•SLIGHT - FEI OR NO PROBLEMS
MODERATE - REQUIRES SPECIAL CARE
SEVERE - USE IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
M
I-
D
-------
-------
-. y .-^ms/j
'.•'/• .•.-•:'% *vvc<
I I 0-«»
iy y vi 1-20 •
v / y\
-------
through owner meetings. The apparent absorption-field function
was field checked for evidence of effluent surfacing.
Of the 59 systems studied in the proposed project
area and possible future service areas, 33 had experienced Rev'd*
some problem, mainly backup, effluent surfacing, or odors.
Twenty-three of these required rebuilding or expansion. (See
Exhibits 5 and 6.) The problems with these systems were
usually identified by the surfacing of septic tank effluent
because the effluent was not being absorbed in the leach
field. Several residents indicated their problem was caused
by poor or improper initial system installation. About two-
thirds of the septic tank systems surveyed in Lakeview are
never pumped out according to the owners.
Information on the lot and absorption-field sizes of
the residents interviewed was not always available during the
survey. From the limited information available, septic tank
system-problems seem to occur on residential lots of all sizes
and not just on smaller lots with limited leach field areas.
Commercial lots in the downtown area are relatively small,
many being less than a quarter of an acre, and many of the
septic tank system problems were ip this area and in nearby
residential lots. Survey results indicate that moderate
residential and serious commercial septic tank system-problems
have been experienced in the Lakeview area.
2.2 WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Baxter County health officials are unaware of any
disease occurrence in the Lakeview area attributable to septic
tank systems, problems. The reported waterborne-type disease
incidence in the County for 1974-1976 is low and does not
indicate acute sanitation problems. (In assessing waterborne-
disease records, authorities suggest the actual incidence may
be many times the number reported.)
* Revised from Draft; see Exhibit 6.
7
-------
QDMERON
"HO* RESOtT
SUNSET MINT RESORT
RIDSHSEST RESORT
AETCHENBERCER (EISS
VIEW d'S E ARE/A
HUBOR LIGHTS MBia(j /" /
CHER CUtM'fiiT
ANTIQUE •-SOWERS
SHOP
LEGEND
Q WPROLEM
Q PROJLEH
A. PROBLEH AW SYSTEM REPLACED OR EXPANDED
Of 40ti IfOO'
-------
-,:=.. EXHIBIT 6 ..., ..... ,=.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS SURVEY SUMMARY
- ' 'Jtev'd**
Location'
Commercial and
Downtown Lakeview
Glen Cove
Forest Shores
Edgewood Bay
Leisure Hills
Gas,ton Road
Project Area Total
Eagle Ridge, Howard
Creek and Nubbin Ridge'
Road Areas *
Total with Adjoining
Areas
Number of , Number of , Number of
Systems Systems With Systems Repl a
Surveye'd Problems •• or Expanded
27
6
,4
• 8
3
_2 -. ,
50
13 ' 9:
4 4
A A
' '• ." T ,•" "
'2 ' ;: 0
' ^ :---- ••• -:- 2"
._! - .' -I "
26 20
59
33
3
23
* Adjoining but not within proposed project area.
** Revised from Draft; corrections based on public comments.
-------
Although the Lakeview area is partially served by
the Lakeview Midway Water Association which obtains its water
from Lake Norfork via Mountain Home, many public and private
well supplies are also used in the area. The smaller wells
use the relatively shallow (to about 500 ft) Cotter-Jefferson
City aquifer which is a fractured limestone formation. Pollution
is a serious hazard in such formations since large volumes of
pollution can enter and travel rapidly through the ground
water system.
Nitrate removal by septic tank and absorption-field
systems is limited. Excessive nitrates (greater than 10 mg/1)
in drinking water may cause methemoglobinemia, a serious and
sometimes fatal poisoning in infants. An increase in chlorides
over normal background levels is another early indicator of
pollution.
A sampling of twelve wells in the Lakeview area for
a select group of parameters which best indicate wastewater
pollution was made because of the lack of shallow ground water
quality data. Seven of the wells were checked for coliform
organisms. Exhibit 7 shows the well characteristics and
results, with comparative values for State Department of
Health analyses for public water supplies. The locations of
the wells sampled are noted in Exhibit 5.
The results of the chemical sampling indicate elevated
levels of nitrate and chloride in ground water near the tourist
and commercial center of Lakeview, and the results correlate
well with one another. Background levels of chloride and
nitrate appear to be less than 10 mg/1 and less than 1.5 mg/1,
respectively. Concentrations up to 50 mg/1 chloride and 4.6
mg/1 nitrate were found. The higher concentrations did not
-------
EXHIBIT 7
GROUNEWATER QUALITY
WELL IDENTI-
WELL/CAS ING
iTFDTH (FT')
1100/500
•330/306
380/303
840/453
235/-
470/47
136/-
450/-
147/-
360/-
-
90/-
165/-
) -
311/24
f) 21-6/70
_
DATE
5-76
5-76
5-76
5-76
5-75
5-75
5-75
10-77
10-77
10-77
10-77
10-77
10-77
im
10-77
10-77
1O-77
10-77
10-77
NITRATE
As N (.ma/1)
< 0.01
0.44
0.68
0.18
0.64
0.85
0.53
1.2
1.0
_ (3)
4.6
2.6
1.8
$3 (2)
1,2
•0.4
0.9
0.1
1.4
CHLORIDE
(mg/1)
2.5
2.0
4.0
2.0
10.5
3.3
6.6
6.6
6.8
4.3
40.0
11.4
15.3
$'?2)
5.7
5.7
5.4
6.5
7.5
TURBIDITY
(me/1)
0.4
0.3
0.2
< 0.1
5.
3.
10.
0.3
28.
2.
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.7
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.2
0.4
TOTAL
TOTAL ORGANIC
PHOSPHATE CARBON
As P(aia/l) (mg/1)
-
-
0.02
0.10
0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
0.06
8$ (2)
<0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
0.03
-
-
11
11
10
9 '
8
10
7
9
15
10
9
12
TOTAL
COLIFORM
(Per 100 ml)
-
-
TNTC (4)
0
10
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
-
-
fc
Town of Bull Shoals
Edgewood Bay #1
Edgewood Bay #2
Edgewood Bay #3 /, •>
Corps Rec. Area #100V/;,
Corps Rec . Area #101 *>l >
Corps Rec. Area #102
Leisure Hills Subd.
- Laundromat .
C hi c k' s Apartment s *• •*
(Rt. 178-Lakeview)
Riverside T. P.
(Gaston Rd.)
Bay Breeze Motel
(Rt. 178-Lakeview)
Midlakes Motel & Realty
(Rt. 178 & LakeviewJ
Dunn-Boat Dock Lane^'
(Lakeview)
Huxford-Rt.
(Lakeview)
Conklin-Deer Path Rd.
(Lakeview-Glen Cove)
Sommers-Ravine Dr.
(Lakeview-Forest Shores)
Montie-Howard Ck. Cutoff
(•Nr. Nubbin Ridge Rd. &
178)
Ward-Lake Drive (Lakeview)21-6/70
Paige - Rt. 178
(Near Leisure Hills)
(1) Not used for potable water.
2} Result? by second laboratory; N03 by Brucine Method. (NOj was 3.2 Mg/1 using ultraviolet spectrophotometric method.)
3) Chlorine interference; after decKlorination satisfactory result still not obtained.
(4) Too numerous to count.
-------
approach the drinking water health standard of 10 mg/1 for
nitrate or the taste standard of 250 mg/1 for chloride.
Contamination largely from on-site disposal systems is strongly
indicated since there are no major agricultural or other
pollution sources in the vicinity. The total coliform analyses
are of concern, and indicate bacteriological contamination of
these private water supplies. Coliform bacteria too numerous
to count were found in five wells, indicating a potential
health hazard (e.g., enteric disease).
Details pertaining to local water wells such as
depth, construction, and vertical zone of influence, together
with data on the geological formations and porosity of subsoil
strata, should be considered in determining the safe allowable
distance between wells and subsurface disposal systems.
In Arkansas the location of all subsurface absorption
systems must meet the following minimum distance requirements:
Public water-supply lakes 300 ft
Any source of domestic water supply 100 ft
Streams, lakes, and ponds 100 ft
Dwellings 10 ft
Large trees 10 ft
Property lines 10 ft
Water lines . 10 ft
The surface-water quality of Bull Shoals Lake and
the White River in the Lakeview area are excellent. (See
Exhibits 14 and 15 of Section 5.2.) There have been incidents ;
of effluent surfacing and runoff to the lake but no obvious
local pollution effects or discernible water-quality changes
have been noted at the monitoring stations above and below the
dam. Septic tank effluent surfacing represents a potential
health hazard.
-------
2.3 GROWTH AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER PROBLEMS
Although the time period for basing population
trends is very short, Lakeview and the surrounding region are
experiencing rapid growth and the proposed project area is
reasonably projected to have a 1995 population equivalent of
about 3,000 as compared with 1,350 at present.* Substantial
growth can also be expected in unincorporated areas adjoining
Lakeview.
Population density and control are of great concern
in relation to the adequacy of septic tank systems. The
present population densities are on the order of two-to-four
persons per acre in the residential areas. The future density
may depend upon zoning requirements, septic tank leach field
limitations, and real estate development plans.
More than 75 percent of the 95 residential septic
tank systems installed in the Lakeview area from 1973 to 1977
were on lots of 1/2-acre or less. The residential lot sizes
in Lakeview are typically in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 acre,
with an average of about 1/3 acre. The minimum State require-
ments for septic tank absorption field area can generally be met.
There are 212 existing residential units, and 555 vacant lots Rev'd**
are platted within incorporated Lakeview. Since recommended
minimum-lot size for septic tank system use is generally 1/2
to 1 acre or more in areas of substantial development, continued
development at the established lot density will foster septic
tank system problems. During wet weather, mutual interference
and soil saturation from septic tank systems which are too
numerous and close will occur. Ground water degradation will
increase. Lot sizes will frequently be inadequate to allow
* Includes population equivalent for visitors to Bull Shoals
State Park and Lakeview Recreation Area.
** Revised from Draft; for clarification.
10
-------
expansion in case of absorption field failure. Soil limita-
tions and the seasonal influx of tourists at the commercial
establishments will further aggravate the problem.
In summary, numerous septic tank systems, marginal
soil conditions, rapid growth and development on rather small
lots, and an aquifer formation vulnerable to pollution combine
to produce a situation that is of public health and water
quality concern. A moderate degree of local sanitation problems
caused by surfacing of septic tank effluent has been documented.
11
-------
3. ALTERNATIVES
Several possible alternatives are discussed including
no action, upgrading the present on-site disposal systems,
constructing a municipal collection and treatment system, and
participating in a regional wastewater treatment system.
3.1 NO ACTION
The no-action alternative will result in continued
installation of individual septic tank systems to accommodate
growth. There is evidence from EPA survey of moderate nitrate
and chloride pollution of the shallow Cotter-Jefferson City
aquifer in the downtown Lakeview area. The expected area
growth and development, combined with continued use of on-site
disposal systems, will result in more widespread and increased
pollution levels in the Cotter-Jefferson City aquifer. Organic
pollutants, bacteria, and other pathogens will probably become
a serious health problem, particularly with continued use of
shallow-well water supplies. The deeper Roubidoux aquifer is
less likely to be significantly affected by local on-site
disposal practices. The deep Gunter Sandstone formation should
not be influenced by local on-site disposal systems.
Septic tank development cannot be appreciably altered
or limited under existing controls. Without the project or
major improvements in current on-site disposal methods, increas-
ing problems from septic tanks can be expected, resulting in
further groundwater contamination, absorption-field failure
with unsanitary surfacing of septic tank effluent, local
surface-water contamination, difficult and costly repairs, and
inconvenience. In many cases, small lot sizes will severely
12
-------
limit the alternative of installing new or expanded absorption
fields, making corrective measures extremely difficult and
expensive. Acute problems will eventually affect the public
health and lessen the attractiveness of the area. This could
necessitate remedial measures for wastewater management,
restricted growth, curtailed water uses, or other action. In
the event federal funding is not available, Lakeview will fund
any improvements without federal environmental-impact review.
Without the project, the Lakeview community (including
areas outside the town limits) is projected to increase from
530 to 2,270 year-round residents between 1977 and 1995, a
38.6% increase for each five-year period. Some of the factors
supporting this future growth are: Lakeview and the surrounding
area have grown rapidly because of mild climate and low tax
rates; the location of Bull Shoals Lake combined with attractive
residential development; the scenic and quiet atmosphere which
makes it attractive for retired persons; Bull Shoals State
Park and the White River; and the natural beauty of the physical
environment that offers a wide range of recreational oppor-
tunities.
Without the project, the town should expect about 50
new multi-family dwelling units to be constructed. Septic
system conditions indicate that dwelling unit density should
not exceed about two dwelling units per acre. A total of 25
acres is presently zoned for multi-family development, which
means that 25 two-family structures, 12 four-family structures,
or 8 six-family structures could prudently be built under
present conditions. However, it would be possible to build
more than 50 units under existing regulations.
The no-action alternative will have the benefit of
eliminating or deferring project related environmental impacts
as well as any major public investment in wastewater facilities
13
-------
in the project area; however, it will fail to address the
basic objectives of pollution control and public health laws
and programs.
3.2 UPGRADING ON-SITE SYSTEMS
The septic system, though simple in concept, is
actually a complex physical, chemical, and biological system.
The system performance depends on design, construction tech-
niques, waste characteristics, hydraulic loading, soils,
geology, topography, and periodic maintenance. The prime
function of the tank is solids reduction, removal, and storage.
Removal of BOD, bacteria, and other pollutants in the tank is
limited, and the effluent is malodorous and of poor quality.
The absorption-field is the most important treatment
component and the element most subject to failure. Because of
various clogging effects, the long-term infiltration rate of
sewage into permeable soils has been shown eventually to
decline to about the same negligible quantity regardless of
the difference in soil permeabilities in the beginning
(Cotteral and Norris, 1969). Biological factors are the most
important, and the major reduction in infiltrative capacity
results from an organic mat at the liquid-soil interface.
Clogging varies directly with the amount of suspended solids
in the tank effluent. Anaerobic (without oxygen or septic)
conditions lead to further clogging through the growth of
slimes and chemical deposition.
On-site disposal systems can be upgraded by using
improved systems and better system management and regulation.
Under the new Sewage Disposal Act regulations the Arkansas
Department of Public Health allows the following reduction in
the required absorption-field size for improved systems:
14
-------
Dosing Tank - 10 percent, Filtration - 10 percent, Aeration -
15 percent, Curtain Drain - 5 percent. Reductions will be i
allowed only where on-site disposal conditions are good.
Upgrading existing systems will correspondingly benefit septic
tank and absorption field performance, as well as improve
effluent quality. These features are not required by the
Health Department and have been used very little in the Lakeview
area.
Where problems with conventional septic tank soil-
absorption systems have occurred, emphasis may be given to
improving effluent quality to enhance soil infiltration and
reduce the dependence on soils for final treatment. Of the
numerous alternatives available, aeration units and intermittent
sand filters seem to,pbe the most promising. The dosing tank
assists the absorption field but does not improve the quality
of the applied effluent. Reduction in flow or waste strength
may also increase the life of soil absorption fields although
reliable criteria have not been developed.
Resting a clogged absorption field for several Rev'd*
months can restore the infiltrative capacity of the system.
By adding a second absorption field after failure of the
original field, the system can be operated by alternately
resting each field and can be expected to last for the life
of the dwelling. As with the dosing tank, the quality of the
applied effluent is not improved. Since lot sizes in Lakeview
are frequently less than one-half acre and may not provide
sufficient area for alternate fields, the condemnation and
use of neighboring vacant lots for the alternate absorption
field is a possible alternative. Applying the absorption
field area specifications of the Arkansas Regulations, up
Revised from Draft; see A. W. Weitkamp's comments of Sept. 19,
1978, and Arkansas Department of Health comments of Oct. 13, 1978.
15
-------
to five surrounding two- or three-bedroom homes might utilize
a vacant one-third acre lot for their alternate absorption
fields. This dual absorption field alternative would improve
but not completely solve the problem of sewage surfacing. The
danger of ground water contamination would continue, and for
this reason the Arkansas Department of Health has indicated
this to be an unacceptable alternative at Lakeview.
3.2.1 Performance
The performance of different on-site disposal systems
is commonly measured in terms of organics, bacteria, and
solids removal. Contaminants such as nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) and heavy metals are only moderately reduced by
any conventional form of wastewater treatment. The typical
levels of organics (biochemical oxygen demand, or BOD), sus-
pended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria are shown in
Exhibit 8 for raw sewage, and septic tank, aeration tank, and
sand filter effluent (Otis et al., 1977; EPA, 1977b; Bailey
and Wallman, 1971). The design levels for the proposed treat-
ment plant are given for comparison.
Coliform concentrations are still high following
aeration or sand filtration. Much dependence has, therefore,
been placed on the absorption field for bacterial reduction,
but certain Lakeview area soils and geology dp not assure
acceptable performance. Considerable organic pollution can
also be expected from conventional septic tank soil-absorption
systems, since organics removal by soils, including many of
the Arkansas soils studied (Ransom et al., 1975), is frequently
limited under anaerobic conditions. The organics (total
organic carbon) concentrations measured in shallow ground
water in the Lakeview area were higher than are normally
expected in ground water supplies (See Exhibit 7).
16
-------
EXHIBIT 8
ON-SITE SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE
BOD
(mg/1)
Raw sewage 250
Septic tank effluent 140-180
Aeration tank effluent* 40-60
Sand-filter effluent 10
Proposed treatment plant 5
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
300+
50-100
40- 70
10
15
Fecal
Coliform (per 100ml)
106
10*
104
10^
200
*Aeration units not meeting National Sanitation Foundation
standards give lesser performance. Add-on units to septic
tanks would probably not meet the standards.
-------
3.2.2 Costs*
Approximate capital and operation and maintenance
(Q&M) costs for the various on-site systems are given in
Exhibit 9. Cost information was obtained from the literature,
septic tank contractors, and the Baxter County sanitarian.
The costs will be higher for installations where rock or other
problems are encountered, and also for add-on units because of
the more difficult and messy working conditions. A concrete
septic tank was assumed to have a life equal to that of the
dwelling. An average 20-year absorption-field life was assumed
for conventional septic tank systems, 30 years for dosing
systems, and 40 years for aeration and filtration systems.
Absorption field replacement costs were increased 50 percent
for add-on conditions. The filtration system is based on two
filters each loaded at 5 gal/day/sq ft, with alternate loading
and resting periods. Conventional .septic tank systems should
be pumped out at least every three years. Aeration units were
assumed to double the pump-out interval to 6 years. A dosing
pump was assumed to require one service call per year and
replacement in 10 years.
O&M requirements generally become more important and
complex with system complexity. If O&M are inadequate, the
benefits of added treatment may be lost. Aeration units
should be inspected at least every two months for problems
such as bulking sludge (sludge that does not settle),
excessive sludge buildup, clogging of the aeration system, or
other system upset. Aeration units are less stable than
septic tanks, and periodic upsets from surge flows or other
problems can cause substantial variation in effluent quality.
Maintenance for sand filter operation includes regular inspec-
* EPA can participate in individual systems for residences
built since December 27, 1977 and occupied 51 percent of
the time.
17
-------
EXHIBIT 9
ON-SITE SYSTEMS COSTS
Aeration
Capital
Tank
Unit
Drainfield
Total
Annual O&M
Pump-out
Absorption field
replacement
Equipment
maintenance
Electricity
Total
(l)Does not include land.
Septic
Tank
$300-400
-
300-850
$600-1250
$15
ild
23-64
-
-
$30-57
Dosing
System
$300-400
300-600
300-850
$900-1850
$15
15-43
50
4
$79-97
Filtration
System
$ 300-400
1500-2400
300-850
$2100-3650
$15
11-32
80-160
4
$107-200
Aeration Cluster
System System (:
$1300-2000 $10,000
300-850 5,600
$1600-2850 $15,600
per unit 520
Delivery cost 200-500
TOTAL $720-1020
$8 $100
11-32 $140
35 $175
60 $360
$111-124 $775
per unit $26
-------
tions for effluent ponding, raking to a depth of 2-4 inches
after the several-month loading period and replacing the top 4
inches of sand every other rest period.
3.2.3 Cluster Systems
Groups of commercial establishments and residences
might be served by cluster rather than individual on-site
disposal systems. Cluster systems are eligible for construction
grants when the residences being served are occupied 51 percent of
the time and the residences were in existence on December 27, 1977.
The possibility of cluster systems serving the commercial and
residential areas where septic system problems have been most
common were evaluated. A typical cluster system in Lakeview
serving about 30 units or 75 persons at 75-gal/cap/day will
require an approximately 7500-sq-ft absorption field based on
Arkansas Regulations for isolated commercial establishments.
Cost estimates for such a system using aeration are given in
Exhibit 9, but the costs for land, delivery, and regulation
must be added. The land requirements are estimated at 3-4
acres, which will provide room for an alternate absorption
field and reasonable setbacks. Delivery costs, including a
local collection system, are estimated to be $200-500 per
unit. The costs for a typical one-third acre platted lot in
the Lakeview area is about $7,000 so that land for a 30-unit
cluster system in a residential area will cost a prohibitive
$63,000 to $84,000. Land in unplatted areas is reportedly
about $2,000 an acre.
3.2.4 On-Site System Management
The management alternatives address the question of
how on-site disposal systems can be controlled to promote the
goals of water pollution control and cost-effectiveness as
well as community desires. The monthly unit-costs of on-site
systems were compared to the monthly charge for the proposed
sewer system. (See Section 4.5.) Including an estimated $340
18
-------
for hook-up, the sewer system will cost $13.00 per month. In
the Lakeview area, it can reasonably be expected that existing
absorption fields will require 100 percent expansion after a
20-year use-period. In many cases, additional property may be
needed. Typical monthly costs for these eventualities and for
upgraded septic tank systems as well as conventional systems
are illustrated below.
Monthly Capital
Cost Cost
Conventional septic tank - Capital $ 8.50* $1000
- Maintenance 1.25
- Total $9.75
100% absorption field expansion $ 3.75 $ 900
Added 1/6 acre land $29.75* $3500
Upgraded septic tank system - Capital $21.25* $2500
- Maintenance 10.00
- Total $31.25
* Capital costs at 8% interest over 20 years.
Septic tank system costs will vary greatly with
individual circumstances. In general, the comparison shows
the relatively low cost of conventional septic tank systems
where suitable. Sunken capital costs of existing septic tank
systems can not be recovered, and are in addition to project
costs. However, some of the sunken costs must be written off
in anticipation of the need for absorption field expansion or
replacement. Where additional land and upgraded systems are
required, monthly costs are greatly increased over the charge
for the proposed project. The charges with the project will
be reduced as customers are added.
If 100 residents in Lakeview upgraded their on-site
systems, including 100% absorption field expansion with added
19
-------
land (assuming the land is available), the total capital
costs would be an estimated $690,000. The Federal share (i.e., Rev'd*
75% of grant eligible items) would be about $255,000 and the
local share about $435,000. The cost to residents for the
upgraded system would be about $46.00/month including operation,
maintenance, and interest. EPA will fund only the most cost-
effective alternative having the least environmental impact;
however, the Town of Lakeview may wish to pursue on-site
system alternatives. Four levels of management have been
identified, in order of increasing control.
Level 1 will continue existing management practices.
These are minimum construction standards as required by Arkansas
Department of Health Regulations. Responsibility for county-wide
enforcement rests with the County Sanitarian, although authority
may be delegated to municipalities and property-owner associations.
Percolation tests must be performed by a qualified agent
approved by the Department of Health. Limited field inspections
are conducted. The regulations are clearly not intended to
recommend or encourage conventional septic tank systems in
areas of concentrated population. Except where nuisance
conditions arise, there is little control over on-site systems
already built and there are only vague options regarding
advanced systems. A number of additional measures are needed
if on-site systems are to be upgraded significantly and problems
avoided in the Lakeview area.
Level 2 will require upgrading all new systems to
provide better effluent quality and longer system-life.
Aerated tanks or sand filters will probably be required.
Added personnel will be needed by the responsible agency to
review plans, provide increased construction inspection, and
reinspect existing systems, especially advanced units.
* Revised from Draft
20
-------
At this level, on-site disposal will remain the
responsibility of the private citizen, but government regula-
tion will be increased. This alternative will result in some
pollution control and public health benefits, but will not
address problems caused by existing systems. Current trends
of land use and population density will not be directly affected.
Level 3 will require upgrading or replacing existing
systems which experience problems or do not meet stringent
design and lot size-requirements. All new installations will
comply with a minimum residential lot size of at least 0.5 and
preferably 0.75 acre, which will necessitate replatting parts
of existing developments. Periodic reporting and inspection
of all systems to assure proper operation and maintenance will
be required.
This option will not accept past shortcomings and is
basic for effectively reducing contamination and avoiding
health hazards. It is not likely to be equitable, however,
since the individual will be financially responsible for
system upgrading and economic losses because of land-use
changes and limitations. The resource, economic, and energy
costs for extensive use of advanced systems will be high.
Level 4 will further establish a central management
agency for on-site systems, operating as a public utility.
Cluster systems can be provided where needed. The authority
can maintain information on soils, water quality, and on-site
system conditions; establish standards for individual wells
(such as prohibition or casing depth); perform system maintenance;
require a performance bond from system owners to be forfeited
if there is improper operation and maintenance; require water
conservation fixtures; and obtain grants or loans for cluster
systems or systems not meeting standards. The agency will be
supported by fees charged to those served, and some of the
work might be done by private firms under contract.
21
-------
The benefits of this level of management are environ-
mental and health-protection approaching that of a central
system where conditions allow. The disadvantages are the
concept is relatively untried, the costs will be substantial,
and implementation will be difficult. The legal procedures
needed to establish such an agency are uncertain. The Town of
Lakeview does not have the technical, administrative, and
government resources as a foundation for such a program, and
it is doubtful that the Baxter County Health Department will
soon possess the resources or authority to upgrade its activi-
ties to provide such in-depth regulation of on-site systems in
Lakeview or other Baxter County areas. Soil and geological
conditions will limit the effectiveness and protection provided
by such systems.
The inability to uniformly implement these programs
will greatly diminish the potential environmental benefits.
Lakeview1s requirements will not cover unincorporated areas,
which will have to implement parallel programs for comparable
protection. Different levels of control in political sub-
divisions will change the expected development pattern since
areas with lower or less-costly controls will probably attract
more growth. Enforcement will be difficult on the local level
because of intense political and economic pressures, and the
public may not favor certain government activities and authorities.
Thus, even if there is a concerted interest in maintaining
on-site systems, many features of Levels 3 and 4 will be
difficult or impossible to implement.
3.2.5 On-Site Disposal Summary
Even with upgraded on-site disposal systems, in-
creased local ground water contamination from nitrate and
chloride will take place in general proportion to growth.
These constituents are not significantly removed by such
systems or soils. Properly operated upgraded systems will
22
-------
lessen the occurrence of absorption-field failure and
associated health hazards, surface water contamination, and
nuisance and aesthetic problems. Organic and bacterial
contamination of ground waters will also be reduced by
upgraded systems.
Cluster systems are an alternative for isolated
developments in problem areas. The use of cluster systems in
the Lakeview area will be limited by nitrate and chloride
contamination of ground water, and by land requirements to
avoid saturated soil conditions. Also, providing such systems
for a static community is more economical and manageable than
for a community as Lakeview with its rapid growth and seasonal
tourist population. As density of development increases, more
cluster systems will be needed in emerging problem areas, but
land availability will be reduced. Cluster systems would best
be planned and installed in advance of much development to
assure land availability and avoid duplication of costs for
switching from individual systems. This will require a sub-
stantial long-term economic, land use, and facilities commit-
ment which, except for land, will not be recovered if it were
decided to install a central sewer system in the future.
A major difficulty in providing upgraded on-site
systems will be establishing proper management authority. The
authority should have power to plan, design, construct, own,
operate, inspect, manage, and maintain all wastewater systems
within its jurisdiction. The authority may also require
extra-territorial jurisdiction through state statute, case
law, or contract. Other powers needed include those to assume
debt obligations and raise revenue through user charges,
special assessments, or taxes. The authority also ought to
have the power to set and enforce rules and regulations for
on-site systems and meet eligibility requirements for loans
and grants from the state and federal governments.
23
-------
Long-term reliance on upgraded on-site systems in
the Lakeview area has serious economic and environmental
drawbacks and will pose many management difficulties. The Rev'd*
Arkansas Department of Health 'indicates that it will be
unable to consider any alternate utilizing soil absorption
because of the severe limitations of the area's soils for
sewage absorption.
3.3 REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM OR CONNECTION TO BULL SHOALS
PLANT
There is no existing or planned regional wastewater
system in the Baxter-Marion County area. A regional system
could be designed around Mountain Home (some 15 miles southeast
of Lakeview) or it might be designed to serve development
around Bull Shoals Lake. The low population density of much
of the area and the rugged and rocky terrain, however, make
such large regional systems economically unfeasible for the
foreseeable future.
A wastewater collection-and-treatment system for the
Town of Bull Shoals (three miles across the dam from Lakeview)
is nearing the construction stage. The treatment plant and
discharge point will be on the White River about one mile
below the dam. The most feasible means of connecting to the
Bull Shoals system is by crossing the White River below the
dam. A break in the line or other failure resulting in a
raw sewage discharge to the White River would cause serious
pollution and pose a significant hazard to downstream water
supplies. Therefore, any crossing would need to be designed
and constructed in a fail-safe manner to assure minimal risk.
Routing across the dam or lake would be more expensive because
of greater distances, the lake depth, difficult topography,
* Revised from Draft; see Arkansas Department of Health comments
of October 13, 1978.
24
-------
and the problem of delivering wastewater collected in the Bull
Shoals State Park and Gaston Road areas below the dam. The
estimated cost of connecting to the Bull Shoals system is
$272,000 ($342,000 less $70,000 for eliminating approximately Rev'd*
4,100 ft of proposed 12-inch sewer line for delivering wastes
to the Lakeview plant). (See Exhibit 10.) However, the
$272,000 cost does not include the cost of expanding the
Bull Shoals treatment plant. Expanding the Bull Shoals system
to handle the added 0.3 mgd design flow from Lakeview is
estimated to cost $320,000, compared to the $642,500 estimated
cost for the Lakeview treatment system alone.
At a March, 1978 meeting, officials of both Bull
Shoals and Lakeview clearly indicated they were not interested
in interconnection of the two systems. The Town of Bull
Shoals does not wish to delay their project or assume the
administrative burdens of interconnection. Similarly,
Lakeview officials preferred an independently operated system.
In summary, connecting the Lakeview and the Town of Bull
Shoals systems does not appear to be feasible because of Rev'd*
community desires, timing, and health concern about routing
raw wastewater across the White River. Even without physical
interconnection, Lakeview and the Town of Bull Shoals may find
it desirable to consolidate some operational functions and
personnel, and thus provide better and more efficient operational
services.
3.4 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
a. Wastewater Reuse and Land Application
Wastewater reuse is not a viable alternative in the
Lakeview area because of the abundant high quality water
resources available. There are no industries or irrigable
* Revised from Draft
25
-------
EXHIBIT 10
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
for'
CONNECTING THE LAKEVIEW AND BULL SHOALS SEWER SYSTEMS* Rev'd**
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
APPROX.
UNIT
QUANTITY PRICE
TOTAL
COST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pump Station 1 ea. L.S.
8" ductile-iron force main 16,000 lin ft $ 16.00
8" river crossing
Rock excavation
Bedding
Concrete encasement
Air relief valves
1,000 lin ft
100 yd3
200 yd3
15 yd3
2 ea
40.00
15.00
9.00
90.00
750.00
$ 40,000
256,000
40,000
1,500
1,800
1,350
1,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$342,150
* From Engineering Services, Inc. (See letter of December 1, 1977,
Appendix A, page 15).
** Revised from Draft; costs updated.
-------
lands to provide potential users and demand for reclaimed
effluent.
Land application is a possible alternative to treat-
ment and discharge. The primary benefit would be avoiding
surface water discharge to the White River or Bull Shoals
Lake. The soil, bedrock, and geological conditions as discussed
in relation to septic tank systems also limit land application
alternatives in most of the area. Soils with low infiltrative
and percolative capacity, fragipans, and insufficient depth to
rock are not well suited to such treatment systems. Sink
holes, faults, and fractures which may provide short circuiting
to the groundwater and nearby water supply wells are also
undesirable. The soils best suited for land application in
the Lakeview area appear to be the Healing series found in the
White River bottom. Land application could reduce the effect
of direct discharge to the White River although as discussed
in Section 5.2.2, serious adverse effects are not expected.
The costs will depend upon required pretreatment and a pre-
liminary evaluation of land treatment feasibility and design.
At least primary and perhaps secondary treatment would be
necessary before land application. The costs for land
application will include about 75 acres of land, transmission,
field preparation, storage, distribution and operation and
maintenance. There may be small but appreciable environmental
benefits, however, a cost advantage over treatment-discharge
alternatives is unlikely. Nearby recreation on the White
River and commitment of a large tract of a scarce land resource
are serious adverse factors.
b. Treatment and Discharge
White River discharge limitations at Lakeview are 15
mg/1 total suspended solids, 5 mg/1 BOD, and 200 fecal coliform
bacteria/100 ml. The treatment and discharge system alternatives
are as follows:
26
-------
1. A contact stabilization activated-sludge plant
followed by disinfection and sand filtration. This alternative
consists of bar screening, aeration, reaeration, secondary
settling, disinfection, and sand filtration with aerobic
sludge digestion followed by sand drying-bed dewatering and
burial.
2. A trickling-filter plant followed by disinfection
and sand filtration. This alternative consists of bar screening,
grit removal, primary settling, trickling filtration, secondary
settling, disinfection, and sand filtration, with anaerobic
sludge digestion followed by sand drying-bed dewatering, and
burial.
3. An aerated lagoon followed by sedimentation,
disinfection, and sand filtration. This alternative consists
of bar screening, aeration in a facultative lagoon, secondary
settling, disinfection, and sand filtration with sludge removal
and burial at infrequent 10-20 year intervals.
Alternative 3 was selected as the most practicable
because of its proven ability to meet effluent standards,
simplicity, ease of operation, and capital and operating
costs. There has been no major question concerning the adequacy
of Alternative 3 in either meeting discharge requirements or
representing a reasonable treatment-discharge, system although
the proposed system will be revised to include chemical precipi-
tation before filtration and dechlorination in response to
comments by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology.
c. Ozonation Alternative
To avoid toxic effects of chlorine on aquatic life,
ozonation of wastewaters is an alternative solution to chlorine
disinfection and dechlorination (see Section 5.3.5). While
ozone is finding acceptance in a few full-scale plants, there
27
-------
is a paucity of toxicity data for ozonated effluent at this
time. Actual operational waste-treatment conditions in Michigan
indicate ozonated effluent had no significant effect on fathead
minnow reproduction, growth, or survival. Nebel et a\_ (1973)
reported no mortality of bass, perch, minnows, and goldfish
exposed to undiluted ozonated effluent during a 6-week pilot-
plant study at a Kentucky treatment plant. These same species
did not survive in nondisinfected secondary effluent. Ozonation
is a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
d. Site Alternatives
Two site alternatives have been identified - the
proposed site on the White River, and an alternative site on
Bull Shoals Lake near the western boundary of Lakeview, (see
Exhibit 12 in Section 4). The Bull Shoals Lake site was
rejected because of the need for added nutrient-removal treatment
(based upon informal discussion with the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology), its proximity to the heavily
used Lakeview Recreation Area, discharge to important contact-
recreation waters, and nearby residential areas. The White
River site also has the advantage of potentially serving the
Bull Shoals State Park and Gaston Road areas below the dam
without costly pumping to the lake site. Through coordination
with the Arkansas Archeological Survey, there will be no
adverse archeological impact from the project.
Nutrient removal requirements are decided on a
case-by-case basis; however, the general policy of the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology is to require
nutrient removal for discharge to lakes because of concern for
nutrient enrichment. Bull Shoals Lake followed a charac-
teristic path of very high fertility and associated fish
productivity the first few years after impoundment followed by
28
-------
a steady decline and then stabilization. Fish productivity
will continue to fluctuate within a narrower range depending
on the varying abundance of nutrients and plankton. Bull
Shoals Lake has been characterized as mesotrophic, a condition
between eutrophic (nutrient enriched and high in productivity)
and oligotrophic (very low in nutrients). The lake approaches
oligotrophic conditions and is known for its clear waters, an
indication of low nutrient-enrichment. The nutrients supplied
by discharge to Bull Shoals Lake would be beneficial for local
fish productivity by providing added plankton, which is food
for shad and bass fingerlings. Because of the local nature of
the discharge and great dilution, however, the overall effects
on the Bull Shoals fisheries biota will probably be negligible.
While nutrient removal from any Lakeview area discharges
to Bull Shoals Lake may not be critical, for long-term protection
of the high-quality waters and in view of increasing lakeshore
development, nutrient removal appears to be a sound policy.
The other drawbacks to the lake site are also valid and important
and, on balance, the White River discharge is preferable.
e. Service Area Alternatives
An important consideration in the project's economic
feasibility and environmental impact is whether proposed
service areas beyond the Lakeview corporate limits will
participate. Decisions involving Bull Shoals State Park, the
Corps of Engineers (COE) Lakeview Recreation Area, and the
developments of Edgewood Bay and Leisure Hills will require
project evaluation in terms of individual needs and circumstances.
A small package sewage treatment plant with discharge
to the White River serves Bull Shoals State Park. Large
fluctuations in flows have resulted in operational difficulties
and odor problems. The plant is designed for easy relocation
if the park is connected to the Lakeview system. The Arkansas
Department of Parks and Tourism has indicated it is usually
29
-------
advantageous to tie their state parks into a local wastewater
system, however, further study and cost information from the
Town of Lakeview will be needed before a firm commitment is
given.
The sanitary facilities at the COE Lakeview Recreation
Area consist of four vault-toilet restrooms, a sanitary trailer
dump-station, and a change shelter with six showers. Two
more restrooms and converting a vault restroom to water-carriage
with showers are planned. The estimated total sewage flow
from the existing facilities is 16,000 gpd (if all are water-
carriage), with an additional 7,000 gpd for the two planned
restrooms. The COE does not consider the current practice of
transporting waste from the Lakeview Recreation Area to the
Norfork lagoon system to be an acceptable long-term arrangement.
Possible alternatives include providing a central treatment
system for the park, or connecting to a regional or local
sewage treatment system. Under current COE policy, new con-
struction of recreation facilities at existing projects is by
cost-sharing with a non-Federal public entity which will
assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities.
User-fee funds may be used to convert vault restrooms to
waterborne restrooms and to provide for showers. A decision
on COE participation will be based on cost and priority funding
needs. One option for COE participation is the payment of a Rev'd
reasonable part of the first cost of the new plant but not include
a monthly user-fee payment. Another option is that the COE
could participate as a customer and pay a monthly user fee.
Based on membership vote, the Leisure Hills Homeowners
Association previously indicated interest in advancing a
wastewater disposal system for the area. The Edgewood Bay
Association expressed its cooperation to secure project approval
* Revised from Draft; see U.S. Department of Army comments of
August 4, 1978. ;
30
-------
by letter from its officers; the validity of this letter was
contended, however, because the Association members did not
authorize or vote on the decision. While there has been no
further commitment from these agencies or groups, positive
interest and need is sufficient to plan service to these
areas. Commitments should be obtained early in the planning
process, as further cost and other information is made available.
The estimated monthly charge would increase from $13.00 to *Rev'd
$15.14 if the State Park and COE Recreation Area are not
included.
3.5 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
The alternatives available to the EPA are issuing
the grant or denying the grant.
Issuing the grant for the proposed project will
result in eliminating increasing public health hazards, water
quality degradation and inconvenience (problems with failure,
absorption field expansion, and maintenance) from septic tank
systems in the project area. Substantial economic, material,
manpower, and energy resources will be committed to the project,
representing (for all practicable purposes), an irreversible
commitment to a sewage collection-and-treatment system for the
Lakeview area. The short-term economic benefits will consist
of construction employment opportunities and secondary economic
stimulation; however, much of the effect will be felt outside
the Lakeview area. The adverse short-term effects include
noise, dust, and traffic disruption because of construction,
but these will be controlled within tolerable limits. With
reasonable precautions, direct effects on aesthetics and
the biological environment including fish, birds, vegetation,
* Revised from Draft
31
-------
and terrestrial species will also be minor. The project's
secondary effects on growth and development will not be great,
within the project design period, but the ultimate rate of
development and density will be altered because of the
increased value and the accelerated development of unplatted
areas and the avoidance of future sanitary and environmental
growth-constraints from septic tank systems. The project cost
as reflected by an estimated average monthly cost of $13,00
will not be excessive compared to similar collection and
treatment systems.
To avoid adverse effect on archeological resources,
an addendum to the Facility Plan will require shifting the
treatment plant site so the eastern boundary coincides with
test pit XU3. Notifying the Arkansas Archaeological Survey of
construction of the lines in the valley will also be required.
In general, EPA can issue a grant to fund any of the
feasible alternatives as evaluated in the EIS, including
septic tanks, and a Step 1 Facility Plan Ammendment could
propose another plan if cost-effective.
Grant denial will result in the "no-action" alterna-
tive with continued adverse environmental impact from groundwater
contamination and incidence of unsanitary conditions. Project
related environmental impacts and commitment of public resources
for wastewater management will be avoided or deferred, but
private resources will be needed to install, maintain, repair,
and upgrade the many septic tank systems in the area.
32
-------
No Action
EXHIBIT 10-A
COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Project
Upgraded On-Site Systems
Economics $5.00/mo/unit for
maintenance and field
replacement
$8.50/mo capital cost for
future systems*
Total Cost - $3,227,000
EPA - $2,324,000
Local - $ 903,000
Unit Charge $13.00/mo**
Individual-approx. $30/mo capital
and O&M plus any added land costs*;
Cluster systems-approx. $10/mo/unit
capital and O&M plus land costs*
Community
Effects and
Growth
No community disruption
from construction
Continued growth to
estimated 3000 population
by year 1995
Community disruption during
construction
Same growth to 3000 by 1995
with increased development
and density beyond 1995
Individual or localized disruption
from construction
Growth same as "no action" but
without land committed to waste
disposal
Water Quality
and
Public Health
Increasing ground and
surface water
contamination and
public health risk
Prevent increasing water
quality degradation and
septic system failures
Will meet stream standards
Lesser water quality degradation
and health risk than "no action"
but satisfactory sites are limited.
Biology
No significant
construction and
operation impacts
Causes construction and
operation impacts
Minor localized construction
impacts
Archeology
No effects
No effects as amended
No effects
* EPA may participate in some cases thus reducing owner cost.
** The estimated monthly charge would increase from $13.00 to $15.14 if the State Park and COE
Recreational Area are not included.
-------
-------
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Based on the analysis completed (i.e., results of water
quality and septic systems survey in the Lakeview area; environmental
impacts analysis; review and comment on the Draft EIS; public hearing
on the Draft EIS; and comments from interested individuals) and docu-
mented in the Final EIS, EPA, Region 6, proposes to award Step 2 and 3
grants for the project as described in this section.
4.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM
The proposed treatment plant is designed to serve
3,000 persons at 100 gallons per-capita per day (gpcd) for an
average wastewater flow of 300,000 gallons per day (gpd) in
the 1995 design year. The effluent limitations are 5 mg/1
BOD, 15 mg/1 suspended solids and 200 fecal coliform/100 ml,
with discharge to the White River about 5 miles below Bull
Shoals Dam. The present (1977) wastewater flow is estimated
at 135,000 gpd, based upon a population equivalent of 1,350
persons at 100 gpcd. The 100-gpcd figure reasonably reflects
water use of about 75 gpcd for the Lakeview-Midway and Edge-
wood Bay Water associations plus a transient population incre-
ment of 120 gpd (2 persons @ 60 gpcd) per motel unit.
Treatment plant unit processes with costs as shown
schematically in Exhibit 11 are: Rev'd*
Flow measurement
Bar screen
Aerated lagoons - 4 units with 48-day
combined detention time - $300,000
Pump station - 30,000
Secondary settling tank - 3 hours detention time - 75,000
Disinfection - 15 minute contact time - 40,000
Rapid sand filtration - 2 units at 5 gpm/ft - 125,000
Also: Equipment building - 65,000
Fencing - 7,500
Total $642,500
* Revised from Draft; updated cost estimates.
33 L
-------
r
I !
! JL
INFLUENT
BAR SCREEN
AERATED LAGOON NO. I
AERATED LAGOON NO. 4
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SAND
FILTER
! SETTLED SLUDGE
i | - - . _,rf _ _ '^ . _,'
I f Ir
AERATED LAGOON NO. 2
i
AERATED LAGOON NO. 3
CHLORINE
DECHLOR1NATJON
CHLORINE
CONTACT TANK
': EFFLUENT TO
WHITE RIVER
FILTER BACKWASH
SCHEMATIC OF TREATMENT FACILITY
LAKE VIEW, ARKANSAS
rACli±! PLAN WITH UPDATE
EZBBiT 51
-------
The disinfection and filtration units will be sized
to handle an expected peak flow of 1,250 gpm. Dechlorination
or alternate means of disinfection and chemical precipitation
before filtration will be required by the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology. The treatment plant will be
equipped with an auxiliary power generator to be used during
periods of extended power failure. The total estimated cost
for the treatment plant is $642,500, including dechlorination
or alternate means of disinfection.
4.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM
The collection system will serve the Town of
Lakeview, Edgewood Bay, Leisure Hills, Bull Shoals State Park,
the Lakeview Recreation Area and the Gaston Road area. It
will consist of about 68,000 Tin ft of 8-inch, and 22,000 Tin
ft of 10-inch gravity collectors and interceptor sewers. Also
included in the collection system are four sewage pump stations
and approximately 11,300 ft of force main. The main line to
the treatment plant will consist of approximately 16,500 Tin
ft of 12-inch gravity sewer. Exhibit 12 is a layout map of
the proposed collection system. The collection system costs
are estimated at $1,934,000.
4.3 LAND AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The treatment plant will require about eight acres
of land, and four very small parcels of land probably totaling
less than one-fourth acre will also be required for the pump
stations.
One full-time and one part-time person will be
required to properly operate and maintain the proposed system.
The annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated at
$20,000 for the treatment plant and $20,000 for the collection
system.
34
-------
t'f S^^''^~-^')^VWi^'^y'/
x^tWWW^^' •"-
'\^^^j^^^^^ $%K^
;, / N" *^><. >V . ""X
/' X \£
f; * »?»»•» >i
^^. "x
fl" FORCE MAIN
BOUNDARY - BULL SHC*LS ST»TE WWK
LAKEV1EW CORPORATE LIMIT
•• • • MAXIMUM LAKE ELEVATION
SOURCE: LAKEVIEW FACILITY PLAN
-------
m
x
I
CO
t\>
o
OO
-1VI3mm<03 OMIHA C-3
1VI3M1HH03 JkDVaNOaif l-D
1VIDV3HN03 AMVNIIM 1-3
IVUNIOKIII AllMVd UTOH • 11(Nlt X-H
IVUNJOIfW X1INW 3T»Nlt I-U
IHV »3sn lyiiMjaisan NON
1NV3VA A
3HOH 3THOM A
SONm3M30 A1IHVJ lllftN fli
OKI
M31A3XV1 JO NM01
Di«ONOD3 CVSNV
3AltN3H3dd«00
OOtr OOZ 0 OOZ
JJU Nl 31V3S
-------
-------
4.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
An estimated six months will be required to complete
detailed plans and specifications from the time of the Step-2
grant. A four-month period is then estimated for administrative
and bidding procedures followed by a one-year construction
period.
4.5 COSTS Rev'd*
Based upon comparing the cost information for Lakeview
with actual bid prices for the Cotter-Gassville system, Bull Shoals
system, and other available cost information (EPA, 1978; Means,
1978), the estimated costs are shown below. Cost increases can
be expected because of inflation. Chemical precipitation costs
are included.
Total estimated construction cost $2,577,000
Contingency 250,000
Engineering 257,000
Legal and administrative 15,000
Land and right-of-way 30,000
Interest during construction 98,000
Total Project Cost $3,227,000
An estimated annual income will be required to
finance Lakeview1s share of the project cost (see Exhibit 13).
The unit count is based on the number of residential and
commercial structures in 1978 and those anticipated for 1995
for the town, plus the areas outside the town limits to be
served by the project (including an equivalent for Bull Shoals
State Park and the Lakeview Recreation Area).
The average per-unit cost for 1978 will be approxi-
mately $13.00 per month or $156.00 per year. As connections
Revised from Draft; cost updated.
35
-------
EXHIBIT 13 Rev'd(1)
FINANCING AND COST OF PROPOSED SYSTEM
Total initial cost $3,227,000
Less land cost (ineligible) 30,000
Less interest during construction (ineligible) 98,000
Grant base $3,099,000
Maximum EPA grant - 75% 2,324,000
Minimum City portion $ 775,000
Plus land cost 30,000
Plus interest during construction 98,000
TOTAL CITY PORTION $ 903,000
FHA Loan for 40 years @ 5% interest
$903,000 @ 38 years - i = 5% (16.868) 53,500
(2 years deferred payments)
Plus 10% coverage 5,350
ANNUAL PAYMENT $ 58,850
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
Operation and maintenance (ESI estimate) $ 40,000
Sinking fund cost 10,000
$ 50,000
ANNUAL INCOME REQUIRED $ 108,850
-------
EXHIBIT 13 (Continued)
Per-Unit Cost:
1978:
$108,850/yr
(12 mo/yr) (784 units)
Project
Costs
Total
Costs
(2)
= $n.57/mo $13.00/mo
(3)
1995:
$108,850/yr
(12 mo/yr)(1618 units)
= $5.61/mo $ 7.03/mo
(1)
Revised from Draft; updated costs.
(2)
Includes estimated cost of $340 for the private sewer
line hook-up and filling existing septic tanks with gravel.
The estimated monthly charge would increase from $13.00 to
$15.14 if the State Park and COE Recreational Area are
not included.
-------
are added to the system the per-unit cost will decrease to
$7.03 per month by 1995. Based upon volume of flow, the
average unit cost of $13.00 per month corresponds to waste-
water volume of approximately 6,000 gal.
36
-------
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ERA'S PROPOSED ACTION
The following environmental impacts are expected as
a result of awarding the Step 2 and 3 grants to the Town of
Lakeview for the continued design and construction of the
proposed project as described in Section 4.
5.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY
5.1.1 Effects of Construction on Geology, Soils, and Topography
Constructing the project will have minor short-term
adverse impacts on soils. Some topsoil loss will occur once
the vegetation is removed and excavation takes place. While
the topsoil is quite thin in the Lakeview area, the residual
rock (chert) content of the soil will help prevent some erosion.
Mitigative measures during construction will include limiting
the length of open trenches to 500 ft and installing the pipe
within as short a time period as possible. In addition, land-
scaping will closely follow the completed construction with
leveling and seeding to protect the areas from additional
erosion and soil loss.
The treatment plant site is underlain, to a small Rev'd*
extent, by Healing silt loam, which is defined as a prime
agricultural soil. Soil disturbance and the change in land
use at the plant site will have a small adverse impact on
this prime agricultural land resource. Proposed residential
development may also affect land use in the area adjacent
to the White River as discussed in Section 5.4.3.2d.
Construction activities will alter the topography of
areas required for the aerated lagoons and treatment facilities
at the proposed plant site. Collection system excavation will
cause a minor short-term impact, but after backfill and land-
scaping, the original appearance should be attained.
* Revised from Draft; see U.S. Department of Agriculture
comments of July 20, 1978.
37
-------
There are no known mineral or petroleum resources
(e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, sulfur, or sand and
gravel) to be impacted by construction of the proposed project.
Blasted rock will be disposed of in an approved fill area or
other unobjectionable location.
5.1.2 Effects of Operation on Geology, Soils, and Topography
Implementation of the proposed project will result
in the abandonment of existing on-site systems which will
result in an indirect loss of soil nutrients and moisture in
the immediate absorption-field areas of septic tanks. To
maintain lawn appearances, additional watering and fertiliza-
tion may be necessary.
5.2 HYDROLOGY
5.2.1 Surface Water Setting
Bull Shoals Lake and the White River are the important
and inseparable surface-water features of the Lakeview area.
Lakeview is situated on a northeast-southwest-oriented ridge
with surface drainage to the northwest into Bull Shoals Lake
or to the southeast into Bruce Creek. All drainage eventually
reaches the White River. The river streamflow in the Lakeview
area is almost completely controlled by the operation of Bull
Shoals Dam. Power is normally generated only during peak-demand
periods, which causes large flow-fluctuations over any selected
time interval. The average flow for the past 48 years has
been 6,093 cfs at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging
system on the White River near Flippin, 11.5 miles downstream
from the dam.
The environmental effects wastewater discharges have
on receiving streams are most critical during low-flow periods.
The house generating-unit, which provides power for the dam
and powerhouse, runs almost constantly and releases about 50
cfs. Leakage from the lake to several springs downstream from
the dam provides another 60 cfs for a total of 110 cfs that
38
-------
can be considered a constant minimum-flow (Army Corps of
Engineers, 1973). The Corps of Engineers cooperates in maintain-
ing the cold-water trout fishery during the summer, using the
following guidelines for minimum average daily releases depending
upon maximum air temperature (Little Rock District, Corps of
Engineers):
90°F or below 250 cfs
91- 95° 375 cfs
96-104° 500 cfs
105° or greater 750 cfs
Instantaneous releases may be lower. The 1- and 7-day low
flows at a recurrence interval of 10 years are 158 and 324
cfs, respectively, for the period 1953 to 1970 (USGS, 1975) at
the Flippin gauging station. There is little dry-weather
tributary flow between the dam and gauging station.
The Arkansas Water Quality Standards classify the
White River from Bull Shoals Dam to Lock and Dam No. 3 as Use
Class A and as a trout fishery. Bull Shoals Lake is Use Class
AA and a warmwater fishery.
Use Class A is "Suitable for primary contact-recreation,
propagating desirable species of fish, wildlife, and other
aquatic life; a raw-water source for public water supplies;
and other compatible uses." Use Class AA is the same as Class
A but also "of extraordinary recreational and aesthetic value."
The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology's water-quality monitoring system includes a station,
WHI 47, just below Bull Shoals Dam on the White River (See
Exhibit 14). This station has been regularly monitored for a
wide range of physical, chemical, and bacterial parameters
since April, 1974. The Corps of Engineers also conducts a
monitoring program in the Lake area with stations just below
and just above the dam (See Exhibit 15). The U.S. Geological
Survey monitors several physical and chemical parameters on
the lake above the dam.
39
-------
STORFT DATF 77/10/15
EXHIBIT 14
/TYPA/HMBNT/STHFAM
WATER QUALITY
WHITE RIVER BELOW BULL SHOALS DAM
PAPAMFTFR
onoio
000?0
00061
00070
00076
00080
00095
00145
00300
00301
0031 0
00340
00400
00410
00440
00445
oo=iOO
00515
00530
00610
0061 5
0 O 6 ? 0
noftto
nom65
00900
0091 0
0091 5
0091 ft
000?=,
009?7
On9?9
00917
00940
00945
0100?
o i o ? r
0)014
0)04?
01045
yATFR
AIR
STPFAM
TIMS
TUKR
COI OR
CNDUCTVY
IMVALin
no
no
ROD
coo
PH
T Al.K
HTO3 ION
C03 ION
RFSTOUF
HFSIOUF
RFSinuF
NH3-N
NO2-N
NO1-M
NO2H.NO3
PNO5-TOT
TOT HAwn
CA|. CIIIM
CALCIUM
C^L CIUM
MKMSIUM
MRhJ^ I DM
SOOIIIH
PTSSII.IM
CHLOHIOF
SIM FAT^
AWSfNlC
C AOMIII"
CKI'O'THM
roppF.9
Tl'OM
TFMP
TF"P
FLOW,
JKSN
TRHIOMTR
PT-CO
AT 25C
PAR
SATIIK
5 OAY
HI LFVFL
CAC03
HC03
C03
TOTAL
niss-105
TOT NFLT
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
M-TOTAL
CAT03
CAC01
CA.ntss
CA-TOT
MR.OTSS
MR, TOT
NA , TOT
K.TOT
Cl
S04-TOT
AS, TOT
CO. TOT
C(', TOT
TU.TOT
FF .TOT
CFNT
CFNT
1NST-CFS
JTII
HACK FTU
UNITS
MICROMHO
NUMHFR
Mfi/L
PFBCFMT
MR/L
Mfi/L
SU
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
0 MR/I
Mfi/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MG/L P
MR/I.
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
Mfi/L
MR/I
MR/L
MR/L
Ufi/l
Ufi/l
Ufi/L
Ufi/l.
Hfi/l
NUMflFR
41
36
5
41
41
1
41
40
40
1
41
1
1?
9
35
42
39
5
5
41)
3
40
1 ?
1?
1 1
1
1?
1
1?
11
3?
31
?1
?3
?1
?1
?1
MFAN
11.0750
12407.7
2.8222?
1.42000
3.90244
?41 .634
27.0000
8.69R9B
7B.4750
1.14574
4.50000
7.93997
122.000
145.917
.000000
146.486
14?. 6) 9
4.33333
.07HOOO
.054000
.420749
.1HOOOO
.01 6250
126. H33
B7.5000
34.6909
43.0000
9. 15«33
1 1 .0000
?.??500
1 . 354S4
5.3906?
4. 1 9355
3.71443
2.9565?
.B57143
4.57143
38.5238
VARIANCE
12.8405
17.0881
.657001
1 1 .8903
?55.B?5
6.447BO
420. 309
.749449
.033545
21.5454
.000000
83.51?9
96.20BB
16.0175
.002270
.00?030
. ] 04H64
.000700
.000424
2B9.795
153.545
26.2531
1.37724
.30933?
.312727
1 .5) 1H4
3.161?9
16.113?
13.??53
1 .92857
">7.5571
1 2?7.56
STAN OEV COEF VAR
3.58337 .323555
9.07303 .536015
7741 .43 .623922
4.13377
.810556
3.44B22
15.9945
2.53925
20.K014
.B65707
-183153
4.64171
.000000
9.13R54
9.ROR61
4.00219
.047645
.045056
-3?3«27
.0?645H
.020592
17.0234
12.3913
5.12378
1 .81773
.5S6176
.559??0
1 -??957
1 .77800
4.01412
3.63666
1 .3H873
6.12839
15.0366
1 .46472
.570814
.883608
.066193
.291902
.?6\24fl
.64329?
.023067
.031H11
.062385
.068775
.923583
.61 082.8
.834362
.769645
. 146989
1 .26721
.1 34? 18
.141615
.147698
.196373
.249967
.412847
.??8094
.4?3985
1 .08068
! .21005
1 .6?01B
1 .3405B
.909479
STAND ER MAXIMUM MINIMUM
.566581 18. 0000 .000000
1.416Q7 31.0000 1.00000
151B.22 24900.0 50.0000
.6BB96?
.362492
.538522
2.49793
.396565
3.24156
.1368BO
.028604
1.33994
.000000
1 .54469
1.51350
.640864
.021307
.020149
.051?02
.015?76
.003256
4.914??
3.^,7707
1 .54488
.530506
. 160554
.16861 1
.217360
.319339
.H75953
. 7SB296
.303046
1.3371?
7.64561
25.0000
2.40000
10.0000
277.000
27.0000
12.3000
113.000
4.10000
4.50000
fl. 27000
122.000
151.000
.000000
167.000
163.000
18.0000
.130000
.100000
1.86000
.200000
.100000
1 72.000
1 18.000
47.0000
43.0000
1 3.0000
1 1 .0000
3.20000
3.00000
10.5000
8.00000
21.0000
14.0000
3.00000
21 .0000
1 34.000
.600000
.600000
.030000
207.000
27.0000
3.10000
30.0000
.150000
4.50000
7.38000
12.2.000
137.000
.000000
126.000
119.000
.000000
.010000
.010000
.1 00000
.150000
.010000
1 14.000
76.0000
30.0000
43.0000
7.00000
11.0000
1.10000
1 .00000
4.00000
l.noooo
.003000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
BEG DATE END DATE
74/04/10 77/Ofl/0'»
74/04/10 77/08/09
74/04/10 76/09/21
74/04/10 77/03/?l
77/04/20 77/OB/09
74/04/10 77/OR/09
74/04/10 77/OB/09
77/06/15 77/I66/1S
74/04/J.Q.-7T/OB/09
74/04/10 77/OB/09
74/04/10 77/OR./09
76/07/20 76/07/20
74/04/10 77/OB/09
77/06/15 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/03/21
74/04/10 77/03/21
74/04/10 77/01/17
74/04/10 77/OB/09
74/04/10 77/OR/09
77/03/21 77/07/lfl.
77/03/21 77/07/18
74/04/10 77/07/lfl
77/05/18 77/07/18
74/04/10 77/07/18
74/04/10 77/03/21
74/04/10 77/03/21
74/04/10 77/03/21
77/06/15 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/03/21
77/06/15 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/08/09
74/04/10 77/07/18
74/04/10 76/10/13
74/04/10 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/06/15
74/04/10 77/03/21
-------
STORFT DATF 77/10/15
/TYPA/AMRMT/STRFAM
PAPAMFTFR
ni 051
o] o^
ni 09?
3150]
T 1 ft ] A
;u * 7 Q
"VI 1M
?OT
OIFI DRIN
ENDnSlll N
FNriRlN
TOXPHFNF
HCHl.P
HCHLW-F.P
MTHXVCI.R
MPflRATHN
LIMOANF
INFPT
ifMVAi rn
MFRCUWY
PHtTOT
MN
7N.TOT
MFIMFMHO
MFM-FCBH
MF M-ENT
(ALCHLP)
WHL S«4PL
WHL SAMP
WHL WPL
WHl. <;MP|.
WHL SMPL
WHL SUPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPI
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
SHFI LS
PAR
HG. TOTAL
UG/L
UG/L
UR/L
/100ML
/100ML
/100ML
ur,/L
ur,/L
Ufi/l
tjfi/l
UG/I
IIR/L
UR/L
UC,/L
Ufi/L
Ufi/l.
UR/L
UG/L
UR/L
UR/L
UG/L
PNATF/ML
NtlMHFfy
UG/L
EXHIBIT 14 (Cont.)
WATER QUALITY
WHITE RIVER BELOW BULL SHOALS DAM
FH
22
21
35
39
20
3
R
1
5
8
10
R
5
10
10
5
5
5
10
10
1
1
1
MFAN
7.50000
SZ.7273
2". 00000
10?. 543
71.410?
44. 1500
.003333
.001000
.001 000
.001400
.0010(10
.002100
.001000
.001000
.002000
.OR4600
.001000
.001000
.004600
,oos«oo
.001000
.420000
38.0000
.500000
VARIANCE STAN DEV COEF VAR
"8.H333 9.4?514 l.?5669
3378.40
13.4000
35197.2
Q207P.6
5473.71
.000001
.??OF-1 1
.KOOF-06
,??W-\ I
.000003
.220F-1 1
.272F-1 1
.000002
.000895
.272E-1 1
o?72F-l 1
.000006
.000006
,?93F-1 1
58.1240
3.66060
187.609
303.445
73.9H45
.001155
.000001
.000894
.000001
.001595
.000001
.000002
.001414
.029912
.000002
.000002
.002510
.002530
.000002
1.10235
1.83030
1.82957
4.2*931
1.67575
.346410
.001486
.638880
.001486
.759588
.001486
.00165?
.707107
.353568
.00165?
.00165?
.545649
.436174
.001712
STAND FR MAXIMUM
2.00945 35.0000
12.3921
.798808
31.7117
4H.5900
16.5434
.000667
.525F-06
.000400
.525F-06
vJMM|£04
. ?5*1V*?>!iS
.73PF-06
.000447
.009459
.73RF-06
,738F-"6
.00112?
.000800
.541E-06
237.000
16.0000
900.000
1880.00
212.000
.004000
.001000
.001000
.003000
.001000
.006000
.001000
.001000
.005000
.110000
.001000
.001000
.009000
.010000
.001000
.420000
38.0000
.500000
MINIMUM
.000000
.000000
.000000
4.00000
4.00000
4.00000
.002000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.050000
.001000
.001000
.003000
.001000
.001000
.420000
38.0000
.500000
BEG DATE
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/10/21
75/11/18
74/07/31
77/07/18
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/12/16
75/03/31
76/10/13
FND DATE
77/06/15
77/06/15
77/06/15
77/08/09
77/08/09
77/01/17
77/06/15.
77/06/15
77/07/18
75/03/31
77/06/15
77/08/09
77/06/15
75/03/31
77/08/09
77/08/09
75/03/31
75/03/31
75/03/31
77/08/09
77/08/09
74/12/16
75/03/31
76/10/13
-------
EXHIIIIT 15
WATKR QUALITY
(CORPS OK ENOTNKKRS MONETORIMG)
Period from July 1973-Au^uat 1977
I'ARA'/K'L'Eil
WATER TEMP.(°F.)
PH
SP. CONDUCTANCE
(UMHOS)
SECCHI DISK (FT)
DISS. OZ (m(j/l)
COLOH
TURBIW (jtu)
ALKALINITY (ma/1)
TOT. HARDNESS
(mg/1)
Ca HARDNESS (rog/1)
NO, + NO, (mg/1)
NH£ (rag A)
KJELDAHL N (mg/1)
TOTAL PO, (mg/1)
ORTHO PO, (ma/1)
CHLORIDE (mg/1)
SULFATE (mg/1)
ALUMINUM (mg/1)
ARSENIC (mg/1)
CHROMIUM (mg/1)
.COPPER (mg/1)
F.EAD (mg/1)
MANGANESE (mg/1)
MERCUHY (u»/l)
NICKEL (mg/1)
POTASSIUM (mg/1)
ZINC (mg/1)
IRON (mu/1)
BOD (rat/I)
FECAL COLIFORM/lOOml
WITO
500 FT.
MEAN
5-1
V.3
183
_
7.9
4
3
128
141
92
0.27
0.02
0.17
0.01
0.01
4.7
6.8
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.10
<0.10
0.0/t
O.OP
<0.05
1.5
0.10
0.05
0.8
0.6
RIVER
BELOW DAM
RANGE
46-65
6.2-8.2
< 50-230
_
5.0-12.4
0-20
0-10
116-160
120-196
72-116
0.17-0.35
0.00-0.04
0.02-0.39
0.00-0.02
0.00-0.02
2.8-7.0
5.3-8.7
0.04-0.12
0.00-0. 01
0.00-0.01
0.01-0.21
<0./0
0.00-0.12
0.00-0.18
<0.05
1.2-1.9
0.03-0.22
0.01-0.13
0.2-1.4
0-2
BULL SKOALS LAXE
NEAR UAM -
MEAN
68
7.2
224
24
9.6
4
?.
119
124
80
0.09
0.03
0.25
0.04
0.02
3.8
6.7
0.0'..
O.CO
0.00
0.13
<0.1
0.03
0.0
<0.07
1.4
0.14
0.03
1.1
2
25 J-r. DEPTH
RAJ!'>:
53-32
6.3-7.9
190-265
18-35
6.7-12.8
0,20
0-5
102-145
114-132
65-105
0.01-0.25
O.OO-0.07
0.13-OJ5
0.01-0.11
0.01-0.04
3.3-5.1
5.1-8.1
0.04-0. OT
0. 0-3-0. OL
0.00-0.02
0.01-0.27
< 0.1-0. 2
0.00-0.03
0.0-0.0
<0. 05-0. 05
1.3-1.6
o.Oi-o.x;
0.00-0.07
0.6-2.2
0-7
BULL SHOALS LAXE
NEAU DAM - 100 FT. DF.PTil
MEAN
56
. 6.8
245
23
5.7
5
3
126
131
88
0.25
. 0.02
0.24
0.01
0.005
3.4
6.5
O.OH
0.01
- 0.00
0.09-
. 0.2
0.03
0.0
<0.05
1.7
0.13
0.05
1.1
RANGE
46-66
6.5-7.S
150-440
18-35
0.0-10.5
0-15
0-6
92-176
118-154
70-112
0.15-0.35
0.00-0.0:i
0.13-0.30
o.oo-o.o.-?
0.00-0.02
2.7-3.8
4.7-10.0
0.04-0.12
0.00-0.04
0.00-0.01
0.01-0.22
< 0.1-0. 3
0.01-0.06
0.0
<0.05-O.OC-
1.3-2.3
0.05-0.24
0.02-0.09
0.6-2.3 •
Less than
-------
The White River and Bull Shoals Lake water quality
in the Lakeview area is generally very good and meets applicable
water quality standards. Low-dissolved oxygen (DO) concentra-
tions have been recorded below the dam a few times because
de-oxygenated water was released from the lake's deep-water
level.* Reoxygenation occurs rapidly, however, and the problem ;
has not been severe (ADPC&E, 1976a,b).
Cold water releases from Bull Shoals Dam have greatly
altered the temperature and related fisheries characteristics
of the river. Whether this alteration constitutes water
quality degradation is problematical since the artificially
sustained trout fisheries are extremely popular.
5.2.2 Ground Water Setting
The bedrock beneath the site area down to the Pre-
cambrian basement contains both major and minor aquifers. The
surficial Cotter-Jefferson City dolomite (a magnesium carbonate
rock) formation is considered a minor aquifer. Fractures in the
350-ft-thick formation yield flows on the order of 10 to 15 gpm.
This is suitable for domestic and farm wells, but the shallow
depth makes them susceptible to pollution. Most of the domestic
wells in the area are in this formation.
The underlying Roubidoux formation, consisting of a
sandstone with interbedded cherty dolomite, is a major aquifer
yielding up to 350 gpm. The 800-ft-deep wells in the Lakeview
area obtain their water from this aquifer.
The dolomitic Van Buren formation and its basal
member, the Gunter Sandstone, lie beneath the Roubidoux and
are considered a major aquifer. The yields are on the order
of 50 to 75 gpm, but higher yields have been reported. Wells
in the Gunter formation are on the order of 1100 ft deep in
this area.
6.0 mg/1, and temperatures should not exceed 68°F because of
* The minimum dissolved oxygen standard for trout streams is
6.0 mg/1, and tei
man-made causes.
40
-------
The overburden materials in the Lakeview area consist
of residual materials produced by the weathering of dolomite
and limestone bedrock. The upper part of the bedrock is
typically jointed, and solution and weathering have produced a
fractured zone. The depth of major fractures and whether
hydraulic connections exist between the Cotter-Jefferson City
formation and the underlying Roubidoux aquifer have not been
defined.
Groundwater generally lies at about 110-ft depth in
the Lakeview plateau area. At the site, streams act as both
recharge and discharge features depending upon the duration
and intensity of rainfall and the degree of soil moisture at
the time of the event. The water levels may be lowered and a
cone of depression formed in the vicinity of each pumping
well. However, the aquifers have sufficient water so drawdown
will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the pumping well
without affecting the regional water table.
Porosity and permeability in carbonate rock are due
to solution of the rock. The permeability of limestone is
also due to joints and bedding planes. In this area the
recharge and ground water flow are considered rapid and the
water may travel long distances underground. Pollution can be
a problem because of the fractures, since large .volumes of
pollution could enter and travel rapidly through the ground-
water system.
5.2.3 Effects of Construction on Hydrologic Elements
Some soil will enter the local surface waters because
of erosion during construction. Even with heavy rainfall
during the time of excavation, the localized short-term adverse
effect of turbidity and sedimentation in Bull Shoals Lake and
the White River will be minimal because of the small amount of
excavation open at a time and the relatively large size of the
water bodies involved.
41
-------
Improper installation of sewer lines could disrupt
or contaminate the public water supply system. In accordance
with Arkansas Department of Public Health regulations, water
main location maps will be used to avoid main breakage and
sanitary sewers and water mains will be kept as far apart as
practicable. Water mains which are necessarily close to
sewers will be at least 18 inches above the top of the sewer
line.
5.2.4 Effects of Operation on Hydro!ogic Elements
Potentially unfavorable long-term impacts include
the effects of the point-source discharge to the White River;
sludge generation and disposal problems; contamination from
sewer line leakage; the fact that some development in the area
with existing or potential on-site disposal problems will not
be served; and the loss of groundwater recharge, soil moisture,
and plant nutrients from on-site disposal systems.
Primary long-term water-quality benefits will be
protecting and improving ground water quality and assuring
that future degradation of surface waters, as well as ground
water from nonpoint septic tank sources, will be largely
eliminated in the Lakeview area. The project will help to
maintain the valuable and high-quality water resources of Bull
Shoals Lake and the White River.
The Lakeview discharge will have negligible water
quality impact on the White River. The target load assimilative
capacity for the reach of the White River from Bull Shoals Dam
to Crooked Creek (27.2 miles downstream) is 11,126 Ib BOD/day
(Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1976b).
The design Lakeview discharge at the 5 mg/1 effluent limit
will contribute 12.5 Ib/day. The fecal coliform effluent
standard of 200 per 100 ml is essentially the same as the
Class A and AA stream standard. With this high effluent
quality and a low flow dilution factor of more than 230 to 1,
42
-------
there will be no significant increase in fecal coliform con-
centration. The increase in stream temperature from the
discharge, assuming the maximum wastewater flow at 95°F and
low flow stream conditions with a temperature of 65°F will be
0.2°F. The suspended solids discharge of 15 mg/1 will cause
no measurable increase in turbidity of the White River.
The effects on surface-water quality are prevention
of contamination from degraded ground water inflow, and effluent
surfacing and runoff from malfunctioning septic tank systems.
Because most development in Lakeview is near and/or drains
toward Bull Shoals Lake, the project will benefit the lake
more than the White River. Since there is no current evidence
of significant degradation of Bull Shoals Lake in the Lakeview
area, these benefits will be largely preventive. A substantial
long-term benefit will be eliminating unsanitary conditions
caused by effluent-surfacing from overloaded or malfunctioning
on-site disposal systems. The project will also eliminate the
suspected practice of spreading septage (sludge pumped from
septic tanks) on fields rather than proper disposal at a
wastewater treatment plant.
The loss of ground water recharge will be insignifi-
cant. Depletion of the Cotter-Jefferson City formation has
not been a problem since the area has plentiful ground water
recharge and modest withdrawals. The beneficial effects on
water quality far outweigh any recharge losses.
The project will pose no health or other problems
for downstream water supplies in view of the 70-mile distance
to the nearest downstream water system, the relatively small
effluent flow, a large stream-dilution factor, the absence of
industrial waste hazards, the existing high water-quality, and
the advanced level of wastewater treatment.
43
-------
5.2.5 Reliability Factors
The collection-and-treatment system reliability is
important to assure full realization of the long-term benefits
and prevent nuisance conditions from odors or sewage overflow.
Proper operation and maintenance are essential. One and
one-half man-years are allocated for operation and maintenance
of the Lakeview system, which is a reasonable level according
to experience with other communities and the judgment of a
representative of the State Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology. The Town of Flippin uses one and one-half man-
years for a system of similar size, and two man-years are
allotted for the planned Bull Shoals system, which will have
seven more pump stations, nearly twice the design treatment
capacity, and a treatment process likely to require closer
operational monitoring and control.
The proposed treatment process should provide good
overall stability and resistance to upset. It is relatively
simple to operate. The large wastewater flow fluctuations
associated with seasonal tourist activities should pose no
undue problems. Since there are no industrial discharges, the
possibility of acute problems from toxic wastes is small.
Adoption and enforcement of a proper sewer use-ordinance will
help to insure that unauthorized connections and problem
wastes do not damage treatment facilities or compromise
efficiency.
Stand-by power generators and a dual oxygen transfer
system will be provided at the treatment plant. Individual
treatment units can be removed from service for maintenance or
repair without serious loss of treatment plant capacity and
effectiveness.
Several 8- and 10-inch gravity collection lines are
planned to closely follow the shoreline of Bull Shoals Lake.
Much of this lakeshore area is rather steep with shallow,
44
-------
fractured rock, and is close to heavily-used water contact-
recreation areas. Sewer-line leakage or exfiltration in these Rev'd*
rocky areas can result in nearly direct seepage into the lake,
causing pollution and possible health risks. The joints used
for gravity pipe in the Lakeview system will be the same as
those used for pressure pipe and will minimize exfiltration.
Significant leakage is unlikely and would only occur if there
is a break in the line.
To prevent ground- and surface-water pollution near
the proposed treatment plant, leaching from the lagoons and
sludge disposal sites will be prevented by an added plastic or
bentonite clay lining. The cost of such lining is included in
the estimated project costs. An under-drain system to collect
leachate and carry it back to the plant for treatment will
also be installed.
5.3 BIOLOGY
5.3.1 Terrestrial Setting
Upland hardwoods and bottom land forests character-
ize the general vegetation, with the specific type depending
on the immediate soil conditions, the amount of sunlight, and
past fire control. The prominent vegetation types and their
associated faunal components at the proposed Lakeview site are
discussed below and shown in Exhibit 16.
The Red Oak-White Oak-Shagbark Hickory-type is found
on the best sites in both the uplands and lowlands. It is the
climax-type of the oak-hickory forest region. The common
reptiles in the forest include the northern fence lizard,
five-lined skink, prairie ringneck snake, black rat snake,
northern copperhead, and timber rattlesnake. Common mammals
include the eastern mole, cottontail rabbit, white-footed
mouse, raccoon, grey fox, and white-tailed deer. Commonly
* Revised from Draft; see A. W. Weitkamp's comments of Aug. 21, 1978.
45
-------
Exhibit 16
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
White
River
Maple-
Elm
Type
Bottom-
land
Old
Field
and
Pasture
Red Oak-
White.
Oak
Type
Black Oak-
Black
Hickory and)
Post Oak-
Winged Elm
Type
Red Cedar
Type
Red Oak- Up-
White Oak land
Type Old
Field
and
'as-
sure
Buildings
Excav.
Site
Plant
Site
Excavation
Sites
-------
observed woodland breeding bird species include turkey vultures;
red-tailed hawks; mourning doves; yellow-billed cuckoos;
yellow-shafted flickers; red bellied, red-headed, and downy
woodpeckers; eastern wood pewees; bluejays; crows; black-capped
chickadees; tufted titmice; white-breasted nuthatches; robins;
summer tanagers; and cardinals.
The Black Oak-Black Hickory-type is found on dry
east-facing and west-facing slopes intermediate in moisture
and fertility between the Red Oak and Post Oak forests. The
vertebrates in this forest are similar to those in the Red Oak
forest. Tree squirrels and deer are most abundant in this
forest.
The Post Oak-Blackjack Oak-Winged Elm-Black Hickory-type
is found on dry south-facing slopes intermediate in moisture
and fertility between the Black Oak and Red Cedar types. The
vertebrates in this forest are similar to those in the Red Oak
forest. These forests usually support fewer numbers of species
because the poor soil fertility produces a smaller mast yield.
The Red Cedar-type is found on bluffs, bald knobs,
rocky glades, and upland old fields. The cedars provide
favorite food for wintering robins, bluebirds, cedar waxwings,
and cardinals.
The Silver Maple-Birch-American Elm-Sycamore-
Cottonwood-type occurs in the narrow and well-drained valleys
of the floodplain that are not subject to prolonged submergence.
5.3.2 Aquatic Setting
a. Plankton
The fluctuating levels of the White River below Bull
Shoals Dam have eliminated most aquatic macrophytes. Brown
et al_ (1967) reported a total of 68 genera of phytoplankton
comprising 99.9 percent of the net plankton collected in the
Bull Shoals tailwater. The numerically dominant phyla were
Chrysophyta and Cyanophyta, and diatoms comprised the majority
46
-------
of the Chrysophyta. Twenty-five genera of zooplankton were
identified. Rotifers were the most abundant group of zoo-
plankton and nauplii were the most commonly taken copepods.
Difflugia was the most abundant protozoan, and Bosmina and
Daphnia were the most abundant cladocerans. The tailwater
community of the White River is generally augmented by lake
plankton just below the impoundment, but the lake plankton
soon decrease under river conditions.
b. Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Bull Shoals tailwaters were abundant in the benthic
macroinvertebrates, Amphipoda, Tendipedidae, Isopoda, and
Oligochaeta (Brown, et aj 1967). Several factors including
large and frequent fluctuations in water level and cold-water
temperatures throughout the year presumably restrict the
benthic fauna to those organisms capable of withstanding these
conditions.
c. Fish
The White River was once a productive sport and
commercial warm-water fishery. Cold tailwaters resulting from
completing Bull Shoals Dam killed the native fish and ruined
the sport and commercial fisheries on a 100-mile stretch of
the river. Careful planning and an intensive trout-stocking
program by the Arkansas Game and Fish Department has created
the largest and most productive put-and-take trout stream in
the nation. The 750,000 trout that are annually stocked now
comprise 99 percent of the gamefish in this section of the
river. The trout are not self-sustaining since natural repro-
duction is retarded by stream flow fluctuation and is in-
sufficient to support intense fishing pressures. While the
stocked area extends for 100 miles, 75 percent of the trout
are in the 50- or 60-mile stretch below the dam, and most of
the trophy-size trout are caught in the first 20-mile stretch.
An estimated 250,000 man-days of fishing in the area generated
$25 million in revenues over a four-county region.
47
-------
5.3.3 Effects of Construction on Fish and Wildlife
No threatened and endangered fish, amphibian, or
reptile species are known to be found in the Lakeview area.
Turbidity during construction will be temporary and minor and
should be harmless to fish species.
The only endangered bird species in the Lakeview
area is the Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) a
winter transient. Eagles are known to feed below reservoirs
on dead or stunned fish that have traveled through hydro-
electric generators. The noise resulting from extensive
blasting from construction may temporarily drive the eagle
from the Lakeview area.
Both the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) and the Indiana
Bat (Myotis sodalis) are endangered mammals which use the
caves in north central Arkansas as winter hibernacula. While
they do not use the large commercial or extensively altered
caves in the Lakeview area (e.g., Bull Shoals caverns and
Saltpeter Cave), they may use the smaller caves located high
in the bluffs. Indiana and Gray bats are highly sensitive to
disturbances resulting from man's activities; thus, a colony
inhabiting a cave in the immediate area will be vulnerable to
blasting during construction. The most serious condition will
be if blasting coincides with hibernation periods (late October
to late March). Such disturbances will arouse the bats,
causing them to rapidly metabolize their limited stores of fat
reserves and make them susceptive to disease or hinder their
success in surviving the winter (Harvey, 1976). Blasting in
the winter months will have an adverse impact on bat colonies
if present in the area. Blasting during the summer months
will adversely affect the cave-dwelling maternity colonies of
the Gray Bat, which will probably move to other caves if
48
-------
disturbed. The Indiana Bat, whose nurseries are more arboreal
in nature, will not be adversely affected.
There will be minor adverse short-term effects
involving the local small 'vertebrate species populations
during construction activities. This will result from loss of
habitat, forcing them to suffer from the limited carrying
capacity of the surrounding area.
5.3.4 Effects of Construction on Vegetation
Excavation for the approximately 22 miles of collec-
tion system will adversely affect about 10 acres of mixed
upland and lowland forest types and areas already disturbed by
development. Since most of the collection system will parallel
existing roads, vegetative damage will be reduced. The contractor
will be cautioned against excessive injury to vegetation, and
construction inspection should further insure that injury is
not excessive. Most vegetational/habitat losses that will
occur are primary short-term adverse impacts that cannot be
avoided and constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources.
Some of the large trees can be salvaged for firewood or lumber
while branches and roots can be chipped for mulch. The natural
grasses and herbs are expected to quickly reestablish themselves
along the sewer lines.
The proposed treatment plant will .eliminate about
eight acres of bottomland pasture. Mitigative measures will
include landscaping to blend with the surrounding natural
environment and programs to restore grassy vegetation at the
construction site.
The only endangered plant known to be found in the Lake-
view vicinity is an oak tree, the Ozark Chinquapin (Castana
ozarkensis) which appears on the Federal endangered species
list. Since this species has not been observed in the project
49
-------
area and has a scattered distribution throughout southwest
Missouri and northwest Arkansas, it will not be adversely
affected by the project. No existing or potential natural
area sites under the Arkansas Environmental Preservation
Commission are near the proposed project.
Construction-related soil erosion and resultant
localized turbidity will result in very minor adverse short-
term impacts on aquatic plant species because light penetra-
tion and the photosynthetic zone are reduced.
5.3.5 Effects of Operation on Fish and Wildlife
Operation of the proposed project should not cause
any adverse impacts on wildlife species. Water-quality
considerations are of paramount importance because of the
extensive and economically important recreational and commercial
fishery.
Chiorination is an effective and economical way to
disinfect sewage. However, chlorine is an extremely strong
biocide and may result in long-term damage to aquatic life. A
2 mg/1 effluent residual would result in a stream concentration
of approximately 0.01 mg/1 at low-flow (110+ cfs) and maximum
effluent discharge (0.69 cfs). Studies show this value is
near or within the lethal range for the brown and rainbow
trout which inhabit the tailwaters below Bull Shoals Dam
(Merkens 1958; Mich. Dept. Nat. Res. 1971).
The EPA Task Force Report (1976a) indicates that
chlorine concentrations below 0.002 mg/1 have no adverse
effect on cold-water fish such as trout. Their recommenda-
tions indicate residual chlorine in the receiving waters
should not exceed 0.002 mg/1. In the light of the information
presented against chlorinated discharges, the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology has required dechlorination
50
-------
before discharging treated wastewaters from the proposed
project.
Several studies evaluated the effects of various
dechlorination methods on the toxicity of chlorinated wastes.
Arthur e_t a\_ (1975) reported chlorine toxicity was greatly
reduced or eliminated by using sodium thiosulfate, sodium
biosulfate, and sulfur dioxide. Studies published by Martens
et al_ (1974) and Nebel et aj (1973) state they observed no
acute salmon mortality in undiluted effluent after dechlorina-
tion by storage in a lagoon. Dechlorinated effluent should
not adversely affect the trout population as a whole; the
trout, however, may shun the area around the sewage outfall
which will be located on the river bank.
Attempts to mitigate the enrichment effect by using
other dilution principles such as midstream and multiple-outlet
systems may prove to be less effective. These two outfall
types produce a quick mixing of sewage and stream water which
forms a zone of concentrated sewage across a stream, causing
heavy fish depletion and an ecological barrier adversely
affecting both fish movement and migration. In contrast, the
bank outfall better dilutes and more naturally purifies the
effluent by taking a longer time to more efficiently mix the
effluent with water across the stream. From.the viewpoint of
fish protection, the simple bank outfall is more effective
than the other, more complicated types (Tsai, 1973).
As discussed in Section 3.4c, ozonation is also a
promising disinfection alternative which will also protect
the trout. Because of new developments in applying ozonation
and dechlorination systems, final selection of the disinfection
process will be determined during detailed Step 2 planning
and design.
Trout, a representative species of Salmonidae, have
the lowest thermal tolerance of fresh-water fishes. Their
maximum upper lethal temperature is barely over 25°C (77°F)
51
-------
(Brett, 1956, and Fry et al_. , 1946), and lethargy is apparent
at 21°F (70°F) (Baker and Keith, oral communication) and may
potentially lead trout to physiological stress.
The project's thermal impact on the White River will
be affected by the fluctuating maximum and minimum discharges
caused by hydroelectric generation at Bull Shoals Dam. The
most critical period will be during minimum generation in the
summer when the 110+ cfs low flow will be mixed with the
maximum wastewater plant effluent of 0,69 cfs from the aerated
lagoons which have been heated by high ambient temperatures.
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission temperature data
indicate there were several days during the summer of 1977
when water temperatures were 72°F or higher during the daylight
hours at Cotter Station (20 river miles below Bull Shoals
Dam). Adding treatment plant effluent and the resultant
slight temperature increase at these times can be detrimental
to the trout program (Keith, see letter from the Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission). "Detrimental" does not necessarily
imply death for the trout, but rather a potential stress
situation in which the fish may avoid this stretch of the
river in preference for waters in keeping with temperatures of
their normal .habitat. By far the overriding factor, however,
will be the amount, schedule, and temperature of the releases
from Bull Shoals Dam.
Another associated thermal effect involves a potential
thermal plume resulting from the proposed single discharge-point
for the treatment plant. A condition may arise that could
limit the normal movements of the trout within the tailwaters
or create a temporary barrier during minimal periods of genera-
tion. As was stated previously, any attempted mitigative
measure involving different outfall types may result in a more
serious consequence.
In summary, while the trout may avoid the outfall
site during low-flow periods, the Lakeview discharge will
52
-------
have a minimal adverse effect on trout and other aquatic
species of the White River. The communities of Cotter and
Bull Shoals, however, have also recently planned or built
wastewater treatment plants designed to discharge into the
White River and to meet similar stringent discharge require-
ments. Careful monitoring and compliance with discharge
requirements will minimize potential cumulative effects.
5.4 SOC10-ECONOMICS
5.4.1 Socio-Economic Setting
Lakeview, Arkansas is a small and relatively young
community on the south shore of Bull Shoals Lake just southeast
of the dam and the community of Bull Shoals. Incorporated in
1973, its city limits form a linear pattern on either side of
Arkansas Highway 178, and adjoin several unincorporated residen-
tial and recreational developments to its north, east, and
west. Bull Shoals State Park, the Lakeview Recreational-Use
Area, Edgewood Bay, and Leisure Hills further extend the
pattern of development along this particular highway facility.
The Lakeview service area is best characterized as a
recreation and retirement community with a population which is
principally interested in the benefits of its lakeside location.
A local resident survey shows the majority has lived in the
community for less than 10 years and moved from some other
state. About 85 percent of its population is above high
school age, many are retired, and most own their own homes.
Tourist and recreation-oriented businesses are the major
employers. Fourteen motels have a total of 155 units, and
restaurants, service stations, and a principal retail shopping
area complete the business district. The resident labor force
is about 29 percent of the community population, and nearly
53
-------
half work within the city limits. The derived family income
for 60 percent of the residents is over $8,000 a year, while
22 percent have incomes below $5,000 a year and 3 percent Rev'd*
have incomes below $3,000 a year (Northwest Arkansas Planning
Commission, 1977).
Edgewood Bay is a residential development of about
85 single-family homes, and Leisure Hills South is a residential
development of about 60 single-family and duplex units. Both
adjoin Lakeview on the northeast.
Bull Shoals State Park, with facilities for boating,
camping, lodging, picnicking, and swimming, is operated by the
Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism. It has a central
sewer system with a small treatment plant.
The Lakeview Recreation Area is one of 21 public-use
areas on Bull Shoals Lake operated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers and has facilities for camping, boating,
fishing, swimming, picnicking, etc.
The proposed project is not covered in a Regional,
Basin, or Areawide Plan. The Northwest Arkansas Economic
Development District, Inc. has prepared a Comprehensive Develop-
ment Plan for the City of Lakeview which was adopted in final
form on March 14, 1977 (Ordinance No. 4). The approved plan
includes objectives and policies to provide a sanitary sewer
system to protect the environment from pollution by inadequate
septic tank systems.
a. Population
Lakeview1s population in the 1975 special census
year was 450 and the current adjusted 1977 figure is 530. The
town has been in existence for only a short time but a study
of existing and potential trends has been made. The current
and projected population levels for the project areas are
* Revised from Draft; see R. E. Lee's comments of August 21, 1978.
54
-------
shown in Exhibit 17. The figures shown are based on an analy-
sis of population trends of Lakeview and the surrounding
communities (see Exhibit 18). The population increases be-
tween 1970 and the special census year range from +10.6 percent
for Cotter to +181.3 percent for Lakeview1s neighbor, Bull
Shoals.
A special census was conducted in the Town of Lakeview Rev'd*
in the spring of 1978. The special census indicated a population
of 484 persons in 230 dwelling units compared with 450 persons
in 180 dwelling units at the time of the 1975 census. The
population growth was 7.6%; however, the growth in number
of dwelling units was 27.8 percent. The person conducting
the census indicated that an unusually large number of vacancies
(23 homes and three apartment units) and other factors resulted
in an unrepresentatively low population figure, and stated
that nearly all of the vacant units have since been occupied.
The growth in dwelling units correlates to an expected increase
of 100 to 125 persons which is essentially in line with the
population projection of 530 in 1977 and over 550 in 1978.
It is concluded that the earlier population projections for
Lakeview are still reasonable in view of the latest information.
Regardless of the project, the Lakeview community
(including areas outside the town limits) is expected to have
a large increase in population of about 1,650 people between
1977 and 1995, the design period. This growth to 3,000 will
parallel the recent growth of Bull Shoals and other communi-
ties in the region. Transient population using the Lakeview
public-use area and the State Park are accounted for by using
a "population-equivalent" of 730 persons, so 2,270 people will
actually be year-round residents. The 1977-1995 projections
are based on a straight-line percentage of 38.6 percent for
each 5-year period. This percentage was derived from the 17.7
* Revised from Draft; see A. W. Weitkamp's and R. E. Lee's
comments of August 21, 1978.
55
-------
EXHIBIT 17
LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
POPULATION DATA
LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM
1975 . 1977 1980 1985 1990 1995
Town of Lakeview
Lakeview Public-Use Area
(Population Equivalent)
Bull Shoals State Park
(Population Equivalent)
450
160
250
300
Areas Outside of Town Limits
Edgewood Bay (2.0 per HH)
Leisure Hills (1.83 per HH)
Riverside Trailer Park (1.85 per HH)
Other
TOTALS: 1160
530
195
250
375
(170)
(110)
( 25)
( 70)
1350
625
230
250
425
865 1200
230 230
500 500
500 550
1530 2095 2480
1675
230
500
600
(305)
(115) Rev'd*
( 25)
(155) Rev'd*
3000
Notes: (1) 1975 census figures for Town of Lakeview from special census.
The 1977 population figure was computed by the following
formula: 1975 special-census population (450) by number of
1975 dwelling units (180) = number of persons per household
(HH) (2.50). 1975 person per HH 2.50) x number of 1977 dwelling
(units (212) = 1977 population (530).
(2) 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 projection and based on a straight-line
method using a calculated 38.6% increase for 5-year period.
(3) 1975 estimate for area outside town limits based on house
count. 1980, 1985, and 1995 projections for the residential
developments outside the town limits based on expected 100%
growth in 20-year period.
(4) Lakeview public-use area figures are based on information
provided by the Little Rock District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
(5) Bull Shoals State Park figures are based on information
provided by Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.
(6) "Other" includes unincorporated development near Lakeview
and in the Gaston Road area which would also be served by
the proposed project.
Revised from Draft; see R. E. Lee's comments of September 18, 1978.
-------
EXHIBIT 18
POPULATION TRENDS
OF-SURROUNDING TOWNS
1950-60
Special-
1960-70 Census
Town
1950 1960 % Chg. 1970 % Chg.
1970-Census-
Year Change
Year Population % Change
Bull Shoals
Cotter
Flippin
Gassville
Mountain Home
Lake view
-
1,089
646
273
2,217
-
268
683
433
233
2,105
-
-
-37.
-32.
-14.
- 5.
-
2
9
6
0
430
858
626
434
3,936
-
+ 60.
+ 25.
+ 44.
+ 86.
+ 86.
-
4
6
5
2
9
(1975)*
(1976)
(1975)
(1972)
(1976)
(1975)
1,210
949
1,026
673
6,415
450
+181.
+ 10.
+ 63.
+ 55.
+ 62.
-
3
6
8
0
9
Recognized Town Estimate (Source: Proposed Sanitary
Sewage Improvements, City of Bull Shoals, Arkansas.
E.P.A. Grant No. 6-05-0395-01-0, Step 1, Facility Plan
and Environmental Assessment, May 1975, Rogers and
Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Fort Smith,
Arkansas)
Source: Population Trends, Table 2, Page 8
Socio-Economic Profile, (1977) Northwest Arkansas
Economic Development District, Inc.
-------
LEGEND
::::::• RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
sovnci' itrr LAKJVIIW COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
NOMTNWfST ARKANSAS ECONOMIC OCVELOPMENT DISTRICT
•^•^•i WMTIITI i_r\vi/-iL_
t-^J RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE 8
c»<*. PROTECTED DRAIN AGE-SHOREL
LOCAL COLLECTOR
PROTECTED DRAINAGEWAYS
SECONDARY DEVELOPMENT
-------
percent increase occurring between the 1975 special-census and
the 1977 population update, and further projecting a 17.7
percent increase and 1980 population of 624. The difference
between the 1975 population (450) and the projected 1980
population (624) is 174 for a 38.6 percent increase.
Some of the factors supporting this future-growth
projection are: Lakeview and the surrounding area have grown
rapidly because of mild climate and low tax rates; the location
of Bull Shoals Lake combined with attractive residential
development; the scenic and quiet atmosphere which makes it
attractive for retired persons; and Bull Shoals State Park,
Bull Shoals Lake, the White River, and the natural beauty of
the physical environment offer a wide range of recreational
opportunities.
Bull Shoals Lake was built in 1951 and filled in
1952. Fish productivity for this kind of lake generally peaks
then decreases and levels off within 15 years from the date it
was filled. This means that fishing in the lake leveled off
in the 1960's. The decrease in fish production has not hampered
increased population growth. The highest population increases
for towns surrounding the lake have occurred since 1970.
The Lakeview area will remain an attractive and
peaceful community to live in. The anticipated .population
will reflect a balanced community with the character and
life-style expected by those who live there.
b. Land Use
Lakeview's corporate limits cover about 665 acres,
the majority of which is undeveloped. Developed uses cover
119 acres (or 17.9 percent of the total), and the remaining
546 acres (82.1 percent) are undeveloped and open-space uses;
however, 250 acres (46 percent) are platted for development. Rev'c^
Exhibits 19 and 20 show the current land uses. Residential
uses comprise 65.3 acres (54.8 percent of the developed uses)
* Revised from Draft
56
-------
with a 1977 total of 212 dwelling units — 202 single-family,
6 two-family and 4 multi-family. The commercial development
(40 establishments or 133 individual units) is for the most
part located along State Highway 178, and is generally supported
by the recreational activity within the area.
5.4.2 Effects of Construction on Socio-Economic Elements
People will not be relocated as a result of the
project, and construction will have no direct effect on the
population of Lakeview.
The treatment plant will take about eight acres of
bottom land pasture near the White River. Because the area is
presently undeveloped, building the treatment plant will alter
its present character. In addition, the several collection
system pumping stations will require small enclosures.
The necessary land will be acquired by the city
through the eminent domain process. Although the subject
property is located outside the town limits, Arkansas State
Statutes give city officials the authority to acquire land for
specific public work projects within a 10-mile radius of the
city or town.
Constructing the Lakeview sewer system will cause
temporary and localized disruption of the community's social
environment which will, at times, be a major inconvenience. A
certain amount of blasting is expected to be required to
facilitate the mechanical operations of trench excavation.
Blasting, of course, can be dangerous, but it need not be if
appropriate precautions are taken. When blasting does occur,
proper consideration will be given to adjacent structures to
avoid damage to private property.
Much trenching will be required when construction
starts, and this will disrupt the present community circulation
patterns. Appropriate construction techniques will to a large
extent minimize this problem. Excavation and pipe installation
57
-------
will proceed concurrently and in only one part of the community
at a time. Barricades will be installed around the work site
to protect both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Generally,
however, pedestrian traffic should not be inconvenienced to
the extent that vehicular traffic will be.
The substantial monetary investment will have both
short- and long-term benefits for the area's economic structure.
The most important short-term benefit will be construction
employment opportunities. While these jobs will be of relatively
short duration, they will stimulate secondary economic effects
as the investment passes through the area's economic structure.
Although Lakeview will benefit economically from constructing
the sewer system, the region will probably experience greater
benefits. Since there are no construction companies in Lakeview,
the town will have to contract with a non-local firm, which
means the employment opportunities, salaries, and profits will
largely be felt outside of the community.
5.4.3 Effects of Operation on Socio-Economic Elements
5.4.3.1 Primary Effects. Primary effects are those resulting
directly from the project.
a. Population
There will be no direct effect on population from
operation of the project.
b. Land Use
There will be no long-term direct effect on land use
from operation of the project.
c. Economic Effects
An estimated annual income of $108,850 will be required
to finance Lakeview1s share of the project cost (See Exhibit
13) with an average cost per unit of $13.00/month or $156.OO/
year including costs of private sewer line hook-up and filling
existing septic tanks with gravel. This cost represents about
58
-------
1.95% of a family income of $8,000 per year, 3.12% of $5,000 Rev'd*
per year, 5.20% of $3,000 per year, or 1.20% of the U.S. median
family income of about $13,000 per year. Those families (22%)
with incomes below $5,000 will have some financial difficulty
paying the user charge.
Operating and maintaining the proposed facility will
have long-term economic effects. One or more jobs will be
provided by the City to monitor and maintain the system.
d. Aesthetic Effects
Visual effect of the treatment plant on natural
beauty is an adverse impact which cannot be avoided. Visual
impact of the treatment plant will be minimized by setting the
plant back from the River and landscaping, including trees to
supplement the thin existing river bank border at the proposed
plant site. The treatment plant facilities will have a maximum
height of about 20 ft above ground. Since the ground is about
25 ft above normal water level, this bank elevation should
also be used to break the line of sight from the river to the
treatment plant.
5.4.3.2 Secondary Effects. Secondary, or indirect, effects
may appear immediately after construction is completed, but
there is usually a time delay before they are noticed. Several
such effects are identified herein: induced population growth,
land use, induced community development, the need for additional
community services, and economic effects.
a. Population
The project is not expected to greatly affect the
type of development within Lakeview, and the community will
retain its present recreationally-oriented retirement-community
character. Constructing the project will enhance and, to a
limited extent, stimulate the ultimate growth potential of
this already rapidly growing community. Given its location as
* Revised from Draft; see R. E. Lee's comments of August 21, 1978.
59
-------
a lakeside community in an area of already rapid growth and
in-migration, Lakeview will inevitably attract some of this
regional activity.
The Lakeview service area is projected to grow to a
sizeable 3,000 people by 1995 with or without added treatment
facilities. The surrounding communities (other than Mountain
Home) should be noted as having grown without public sewer
systems.
Arkansas law requires each septic system site pass a
percolation test before the system can be installed. The
ultimate population growth without the project will partly
depend on the overall saturation point of the soil on an
individual lot basis, as well as the collective effect of
numerous individual septic tank systems. The present 555 vacant
platted lots within the town limits can not legally be required
to provide additional space for leach fields. Septic tank
development, therefore, cannot be prohibited or appreciably
altered under existing controls. Substantial problems are
likely to occur continuously over the next 20 years in present
and future septic systems because of troubles inherent in
septic tank systems, the area's soils, topography, and small-lot
development characteristics.
b. Community Development and Land Use
The sanitary sewer system will greatly enhance the
efficiency with which land can be used, and will ultimately
alter both the rate and density of development. While a
variety of land-use categories can be more densely developed,
the greatest effect is expected in the residential housing
market.
The project is not expected to change the type of
development. Future land-use trends are expected to follow
the already established patterns, with most of the residential
development occurring on the north side of State Highway 178
60
-------
and strip commercial-development all along the same facility.
Industrial development is not expected in the project area and
the proposed project is not expected to change this. New
homes and services attracted to the area will, in the long
term, benefit the economy, tax base, and employment opportunities.
Recreational areas will more easily be upgraded and expanded
because sewage treatment and disposal will no longer be an
obstacle.
1. Residential Development
Thus far, residences have been built in those parts
of Lakeview where land was made available for development
purposes. These are in the older, more intensely developed
areas in the western part of the community, and in the newly-
platted, yet more sparsely developed, areas in its eastern
sector. The principal effects of the proposed sewer system
can be expected to be in locations which are not yet platted
for development.
Residential growth will initially occur in those
generally vacant areas that have already been platted (555
lots). All such locations north of Arkansas Highway 178 will
be particularly susceptible to this activity. Areas of secondary
development potential will include the platted areas south of
the same highway, and the occasional vacant areas in the older
parts of the City. The new developments will basically be
single-family units. The large majority of residential areas
are zoned only for single-family residences, with multi-family
housing designated for the southwestern sector of the community
near the major tourist-type commercial developments. Given
the character of the existing multi-family housing in Lakeview,
this more intense residential use will probably not be greater
than six-family units.
Large areas of residentially developable land in
town (249 acres) have not been platted simply because the land
is not yet prime for development. The principal effect the
61
-------
proposed system will ultimately have on Lakeview will be to
increase the value of these larger undeveloped and unplatted
parcels within and outside the town limits through an enhance-
ment of their ultimate use-potential. As a result, the future
value of these areas can be expected to simply become too
great to be either left unused or remain in agricultural
production. An additional 498 units or more (2.50 x 498 =
1,245 people) can be built after 1995 if the 249 acres within
the town limits are developed.
2. Commercial Development
Recreation is the present basis for Lakeview1s
economy. Induced commercial activity is more a matter of
population growth and the further development of a well-defined
market area. The proposed sewer project is not expected to
have any direct effect on future commercial development.
Commercial development will, instead, be more dependent upon
induced population growth resulting from increasing recreational
activity and Lakeview's status as a retirement community.
However, since many commercial establishments are experiencing
septic system problems, a sewer system will alleviate existing
conditions and will make it easier to expand and solve operational
and maintenance problems.
Certain minor changes can be be expected to occur
and, if the project is built, local commercial activity will
eventually become more diversified and serve not only a
recreation-oriented population, but also a larger number of
permanent residents. Diversification will not only be evident
as a larger number of retail outlets, but also as a larger
number of retail functions. Commercial activity will probably
continue to be located on State Highway 178, extending eastward
from the present retailing area.
3. Recreational Development
Tourism and recreational activities have been, and
are, the basis for continued community development. Although
62
-------
fishing on the lake has decreased from its peak production
period, the overall use of recreational facilities has fluctuated
with the economy since 1972 as shown in Exhibit 21.
The 1977 figures show an increased number of people
visited the general Lakeview area. The 1976 figures are the
lowest because an extremely dry year caused the lake level to
drop 20 ft.
The heavy use-trend will continue and the proposed
sewer system will be an added convenience for visitors. The
community will be better able to accommodate a larger permanent
and seasonally-transient population, allowing more people to
take advantage of Lakeview's recreational opportunities.
Without the project, the potential problems of septic systems
will, in the long term, detract from the attractiveness of the
area.
4. Additional Community Services
Lakeview officials will have to evaluate the need
for additional community facilities, services, and programs to
properly handle the expected increased growth with the project
beyond 1995. The Lakeview-Midway Water Association will
require storage in the Lakeview area as well as enlarged mains
prior to 1995. Solid waste handling and landfill facilities
appear adequate.
c. Economic Effects
At least part of the salaries of those operating the
system can be expected to be returned to the community through
spending for goods and services since these employees can be
expected to come from the community. The other long-term
economic effect will not accrue to the community or its
inhabitants since these involve purchasing maintenance chemicals
and supplies not available in Lakeview.
Lakeview1s economy is primarily geared to recrea-
tional activities associated with the lake. Consequently, the
small shops, motels, and boat facilities will grow and prosper
63
-------
Exhibit 21
Recreational Visitors at Lakeview Area Facilities
(Source: Little Rock District Corps of Engineers)
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Lakeview 315,325 275,133 248,443 304,091 213,978 276,004
Dam Area 1,185,593 771,452 885,180 1,052,350 727,802 969,809Est.
Bull Shoals 136,573 141,552 143,502 137,439 96,548 110,981
STATE TOTAL 3,939,654 3,066,286 3,695,340 4,385,656 3,885,447
-------
as the community grows and additional leisure time is directed
toward water-related activities. Area residents will therefore,
have additional employment opportunities and the young and
elderly will have seasonal employment. Such effects attributable
to the project will occur beyond 1995.
d. Proposed New Development Rev'd*
The recently proposed development of 722 acres of
land south of Lakeview has potentially significant effects on the
community and the proposed wastewater system. Land use would
be changed from agricultural to residential. The planned
development of 1200 dwelling units would increase the area's
population by 2400 people or more, of which the majority
would be elderly. There would be a need to expand commercial
establishments to service the population and about 200 jobs
would be created. Additional utilities, police, health, and
other services would be needed. Satisfactory wastewater
treatment facilities would be required and connection to the
proposed Lakeview system would be a likely alternative.
Appropriate cost sharing and provisions for plant expansion
would be needed. Recreational use of the White River and
Bull Shoals Lake would increase.
The proposed wastewater system will also effect
the new development area which includes the treatment plant
site. Land would be required for the plant site including
land for expansion if the new development is served by the
Lakeview system. A buffer zone would be needed between the
treatment plant and residential areas. Odor should not be
a problem unless there is equipment malfunction as discussed
in Section 5.5.2. The westerly component of the prevailing
winds will help provide air circulation away from the proposed
new real estate development.
* Revised from Draft; see Richard A. Dean comments of August 25, 1978.
64
-------
5.5 AIR AND SOUND QUALITY
5.5.1 Effects of Construction on Air and Sound Quality
Quiet, residential areas of Lakeview can be expected
to have low noise levels of about 40 to 50 decibels (dB).
Disruptive noise from construction will be a primary short-term
adverse impact. Noise will be generated by motorized trenching
equipment, blasting, and the excavation and erection equipment
at the treatment plant site. The contractor will be required
to have proper mufflers on all construction equipment. The
equipment required for this project such as backhoes, tractors,
compressors, jack hammers, and drills typically generate noise
in the range of 80-95 dB at a 50-ft distance (EPA, 1976b).
Much of the project area will be subject to blasting.
Most of the blasting is anticipated during construction of
lines on the steeper hillsides. Relatively little blasting
should be required on the Lakeview plateau, with minimal
blasting at the treatment plant and other river bottom sites.
Rock blasting at shallow depths is not overly irritating
or disturbing if it is properly controlled and executed by
persons thoroughly experienced in this line of work, residents
are properly notified, and the blasting is done at infrequent
intervals and during hours compatible with the community
lifestyle. Shielding and padding will be used to minimize the
noise effects from blasting, and all construction will be
during normal working hours so as not to interfere with the
usual "quiet hours." Warnings will be given to residents
before each detonation, and all blasting will be done in
accordance with accepted safety procedures.
The primary short-term adverse air pollution effects
include emissions from construction vehicles and dust associated
with the excavation work and traffic. Since the number of
65
-------
construction vehicles will be small, emissions will be negli-
gible on an area basis. Minor local annoyance from fumes and
odors might occur during periods when air circulation is poor.
Nuisance dust conditions near residential areas and thorough-
fares will be controlled by spraying with water as well as
proper mulching and reseeding. Neither the problem nor the
control measures should be too difficult if construction
proceeds in a localized step-by-step basis.
5.5.2 Effects of Operation on Air and Sound Quality
Although the various pump stations will be located
within 100 to 200 ft of residences and commercial establishments,
noise from these facilities will not be objectionable because
of the small pump sizes and provision of proper enclosures or
installation below ground. Noise levels of about 70 dB can be
expected from the pumps, and an enclosure will reduce this
level to approximately 30 dB or the equivalent of a whisper.
Noise-generating equipment at the treatment plant site on the
White River will be similarly contained.
Since prevailing winds are from the south and southwest,
major odors indicating a malfunction of the treatment plant
could conceivably be noticed at residences and business about
a mile north. Reliability features and proper operation will
minimize the chance of such occurrence, however. Odors at the
pump stations will cause little problem if the wastes are
transported quickly to the treatment plant before anaerobic,
odor-causing conditions can develop. Proper design of the
pump stations and other system components is essential, and
the small size of Lakeview will aid in avoiding odor problems.
66
-------
5.6 ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORY
5.6.1 Effects of Construction on Archeology and History
The National Register of Historic Places lists no
historic sites in the project area, and the State Historic
Preservation Program indicates no property of architectural or
historical significance will be affected by construction of
the proposed project (See Appendix B, p. B-l).
A preliminary survey by the Arkansas Archeological
Survey found a large archeological site in the White River
valley at the proposed treatment plant location. Outside of
the valley bottom, no findings were made along proposed sewer
lines, which are generally located in disturbed residential
and street areas. Further archeological testing and excavation
conducted in the valley bottom by the Arkansas Archeological
Survey revealed that significant archeological resources are
located at the proposed treatment plant site (see Appendix B).
These resources would be adversely impacted by the construction
of this facility. One site (3BA66a) is considered to be
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places. The archeological survey indicates that two major
concentrations of cultural materials, designated as sites
3BA66a and 3BA66b, are present in the valley. Site 3BA66a, an
unusually large site for the area, was occupied from early
Archaic to Woodland times, and has relatively deep deposits
(at least one meter), which are undisturbed below the shallow
plowzone. This site would be severely damaged by the
construction of the treatment plant at its proposed location.
3BA66b is a large Mississippian site which has potential
importance, but would not be directly impacted by the proposed
project.
67
-------
Mitigative measures incorporated to alleviate adverse
impact to these sites will include a Facility Plan addendum
moving the proposed treatment plant location to the west so
the eastern boundary coincides with test pit XU3. The Archeological
Survey will be notified when construction of the outfall line
and Interceptor A has been scheduled and construction personnel
will be alerted to be looking for evidence of prehistoric
occupation, i.e., stone tools, bone, and pottery shards in
construction areas. Should any resources be encountered, work
will be halted and the Arkansas Archeological Survey will be
notified immediately so that provisions are made for appropriate
data recovery.
The Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
has been informed of these findings so that they may comment
in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act as
amended. The Advisory Council will be allowed to comment
according to its procedures (36 CFR 800) if any additional
resources are encountered during construction.
5.6.2 Effects of Operation on Archeology and History
There will be no effects on archeology and history from
operation of the project.
68
-------
-------
6. COORDINATION
6.1 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Several public meetings and a July 22, 1976 public
hearing were held during the planning stages of the proposed
project. Federal, state, and local agencies, and interested
individuals and groups were contacted for information and
views during the EIS preparation. Questions and concerns
expressed included the suitability of on-site disposal
alternatives; cost and economic effects; secondary effects
upon growth and development; projected growth and wastewater
flow estimates; and whether several jurisdictions outside the
incorporated Lakeview area will participate.
A report by the Ad Hoc Committee for EIS Input led
by Messrs. R. E. Lee, W. McElroy, and Dr. A. W. Weitkamp
discussed the above and other concerns in detail, and Committee
members and other interested parties were consulted during the
EIS information gathering period.
6.2 CORRESPONDENCE DURING DRAFT EIS PREPARATION
The following is a list of correspondence on project
problems and issues which is included as Appendix A.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
comments of October 20, 1976 on the Lakeview Facility
Plan; response of November 16, 1976 as Facility Plan
Addendum #1; and December 9, 1976 letter of the
ADPCE requiring dechlorination.
Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism January 25, 1977
letter concerning Bull Shoals State Park participation
in the system.
69
-------
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission October 4, 1977
letter concerning thermal effects of the proposed
discharge on the White River trout fishery.
Dr. A. W. Weitkamp's October 12, 1977 letter concerning
per-capita water use.
Dr. A. W. Weitkamp's October 24, 1977 letter concerning
control of population density.
Engineering Services, Inc. October 26, 1977 letter
concerning costs of serving Bull Shoals State Park
and the Lakeview Recreation Area.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers November 7, 1977 letter
concerning Lakeview Recreation Area participation in
the system.
Engineering Services, Inc. December 1, 1977 letter
concerning user charges and costs for connecting
to the Town of Bull Shoals system.
Engineering Services, Inc. January 10, 1978 letter
concerning project costs clarification.
Arkansas Archeological Survey - 4 letters
6.3 REVIEW PROCESS AND PREPARATION OF FINAL EIS
The Draft EIS was distributed to Federal, State, and
local agencies, and interested individuals for review and comment.
A public hearing on the Draft EIS was held on August 21, 1978, in
Lakeview. Comments supporting and opposing the project were
about evenly divided. The major concerns of those opposing
70
-------
or questioning the project were project justification, costs
and economic impacts, and protection of trout. At the request
of Mr. R. E. Lee and Dr. A. W. Weitkamp, a meeting to further
discuss their concerns was held at EPA Region 6 offices on
September 18 and 19. Comments received have been reviewed and
evaluated and incorporated into the Final EIS as appropriate.
Comments and EPA's responses are provided in this section in
the following order:
Comment From Date
U.S. Department of Agriculture 7-20-78
U.S. Department of Energy 8-3-78
U.S. Department of Defense 8-4-78
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare 8-17-78
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 8-22-78
U.S. Department of Interior 8-30-78
U.S. Department of Commerce 9-21-78
Arkansas Archeological Survey 8-8-78
Arkansas State Clearinghouse 10-2-78
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology 9-12-78
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 9-21-78
Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission 9-28-78
Arkansas Department of Health 10-13-78
(also letter requesting comments)
Petition 8-18-78
L. K. Donoho 8-21-78
(White River Fly Fishers)
71
-------
Comment From Date
R. E. Lee 8-21-78
A. W. Weitkamp 8-21-78
8-25-78
H. C. Barnes 8-25-78
Richard A. Dean 8-25-78
Gaston's White River Resort 8-26-78
(Jim Gaston)
Harold and Martha Hoeffner 8-26-78
John V. Gaff 8-26-78
Michael A. and Caron R. Davis 8-28-78
Evans Realty 8-28-78
(Larry Evans)
William H. Guppy P.E. 8-28-78
(White River Fly Fishers) (with 8-21-78 comments)
Joseph Horvath 8-28-78
Elizabeth Klajnik 8-28-78
W. G. Kuschel 8-28-78
Frank P. Mueller 8-28-78
Mrs. Mary Seum 8-28-78
Mrs. Muckshaw 8-29-78
Nield J. Sanders 8-29-78
Caroline Drolet 8-30-78
Marvin L. Cole & Associates, Inc. 9-1-78
(Marvin L. Cole, P.E.)
Dale W. Sheets 9-1-78
Mr. and Mrs. Emil Evers 9-3-78
Dorothy A. Boyd 9-5-78
Richard B. Morris 9-5-78
The Randle Company 9-5-78
(Dick Randle)
Town of Lakeview
(Claude W. Shonkweiler, Mayor) 9-5-78
Engineering Services, Inc. 11-17-78
72
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Post Office Box 2323, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
July 20, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator, EPA . • .:
Region 6
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270 • •
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Lakeview, Arkansas,
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, was reviewed from an agricultural
viewpoint. Our comments are as follows:
1. Your use of the soil survey information added a great
deal to the document.
2. It is suggested that, an additional paragraph be added
to Paragraph 5.1.1, noting that the treatment plant's
location is underlain, to a small extent, by Healing
silt loam, a soil, that is defined as a prime soil.
The impact would be small, and the benefits of the
wastewater treatment facility would far outweigh the
impact on this prime agricultural land.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document.
Sincerely,
5 cc: Council on Environmental Quality, Attention: General Counsel,
722 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006
5 cc: Director, Office of Federal Activities A-104, EPA, Room 537,
West Tower, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
1 cc: R. M. Davis, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C. 20013
1 cc: Office of the Coordinator of Environmental Quality Activities,
Office of the Secretary, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20013
1 cc: J. Vernon Martin, Director, STSC, SCS, Ft. Worth, Texas 76115
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722O3
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
SWLED-PV
4 August 1978
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Ms. Harrison:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Lakeview,
Arkansas, Waste Water Treatment Facilities, as it relates to our area of
responsibility and offer the following comments.
a. Only one option of Corps participation in the facility is men-
tioned on page 29. Another option is that the Corps could participate
as a customer and pay a monthly user fee.
b. It appears from the general layout map that a Section 10 and
Section 404 permit will be required for the outfall structure. This
application should be submitted at least 6 months before construction
is begun but not more than 3 years before construction is to be completed.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT W. GLENN
LTC, Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
EPA RESPONSE
This option has been added to Section 3.4e.
This information is noted and The Corps of Engineers'
responsibility for issuing the subject permits for the outfall
is recognized.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICF:
CCNTI.R i ON m!>i,.A:.r: CONTHOI
ATI, AN Tf\. C.I. OWC. I A lIDj;!^
Mr. Clinton Ji. Spot us
Regional 1C IS Coord i.nalor
Knv ironmental Pro Lee t ton Agency
Region 6
.1.201 KJm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Ue.'i r Mr . Spo U.:s :
This UK'J.S is a we IJ.-wrJ, tten report. that add reuses all o'. the is SUCH ade-
quately . The chosen coarse o.i: ac t ion L s Ins la 1 la t Ion of. a sewer sy s tein ,
provision of secondary treatment; with lour aerated lagoons , c hem Leal pre-
eipltation , r.-i pid sand t LitraLLoa , and ehlori, nation with dechlorination
(if needed) . The treated effluent will be d i.sc harmed to the Wlii te Ki ver.
We concur in th i r. course o E action.
Tlie last jxiraj', r.i pli on i>;.tj',e .-i3 does .1.11 Produce 01:0 problem without consider-
ing a solution. It points out that: several 8- and 10-inch gravity col lection
lines .ire planned to closely i:ol.low the "' "'•:-" ~ L~ °--'' f>K---'1- ' -'-
;he shoceline oi Bull Shoals Uike, and
that sewe r-line leakage ii
U'A atjreeii and as u'iscussect in Section b
pressure-type; joints will :ii i n irn i/c potential .'-.livpr
(rum ox Ii1trat i on.
It is common t.o seek to provide .sewe.raj;c witli adequate treatment I:or rapidly
increasing populat tons at existing water resources projcc ts. Typically ,
the burden fall;-; on small units of government: wlio are ill-c(iuipped to prov ide
the service. It is recomaiendcd ttiat all linture water resource projects in-
clude provision In tiie plamu ng and budget, fur adequate sewerage. l:or the
increased population 1 ike l.y to be induced.
Thank you for the. opportunity of reviewing this statement. We would appre-
c i a to receiving a copy of the final when it is issued.
Sincerely yours,
William II. Koege, M.D.
As s i s i:a n t: Su rj'.eon Coneral
Director
-------
Advisory Council o..
Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
August 22, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in response to your request of July 12, 1978 for comments on the
draft environmental statement (DBS) for the proposed Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, Lakeview, Arkansas. The Advisory Council has reviewed the
DBS and notes that while cultural resource studies to date indicate no
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed undertaking, addi-
tional cultural resource studies will be undertaken prior to project
implementation. The Council also notes that the Environmental Protection
Agency recognized, its responsibilities pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f, as amended,
90 Stat. 1320), should the above-cited cultural resource studies identify
•previously unknown significant properties.
Accordingly, the Council looks forward to working with the EPA in accord-
ance with the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties" (36 CFR Part 800) in the future, as appropriate.
Should you have questions or require additional assistance, please contact
Michael H. Bureman of the Council staff at P. 0. Box 25085, Denver,
Colorado 80225, telephone number (303) 234-4946. Your continued cooperation
is appreciated.
Sincerely your
Louis'^. Wall
Assistant Director, Office of
Review and Compliance, Denver
The Council w art in-depe-ndcnt unit of the Executrvc Branca of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 11, 1966 to advise the President and Congress in the field, of Historic Preservation.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OKKIOK, OKTHK SKCIIKTAKY
SOUTIIWKST KKC.ION
I'osTOKFK'K nox :;O,MS
AI,UU()UKIM)UK, NKW MHXICO K71(i:i
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
ER-78/646
AUG a u 1973
Mr. Clinton 13. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
As requested we have reviewed the draft environmentaT state-
ment for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Lakeview, Baxter
County, Arkansas.
We find that the statement adequately discusses the environ-
mental impacts of the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
?/•
Raymond P. Churan
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
September 21, 1978
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington. D.C. 20230
4335
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The draft environmental impact statement for the
"Lakeview, Arkansas Wastewater Treatment Facilities,"
which accompanied your letter of July 12, 1978, has
been received by the Department of Commerce for review
and comment.
The Department of Commerce has reviewed the draft
environmental statement and has no comment.
We are pleased to have been offered the opportunity
to review this statement.
Sidney R. /Gallef
Deputy Assistanc^ecretary
for Environmental Affairs
-------
3 THE
IFUTURE
ARKANSAS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Oin-ctor • Charles R. McGimscy HI
Stale Archeolonist • Hester A. Davis
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Coordinating Office
University of Arkansas Museum
Kayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Phone: i«l-575-:tr>5fi
TO: Mr- Clinton B- Spotts, HIS Coordinator
Envi ronmenta1 Protect i on Agency Region 6/
/'
FROM: lies tor A. Davis, Sl'.ate Arciieol ogisr
As reported i n sect: ion r> -(i. 1 of Che dra ft. HIS , an a rc.hoo J og i ca I survey
and test oxcavjt ion of the proposed plant si 1 e by the Arkansas Archeo 1 og i.ca 1
Survey de terrni nod tl'ia t the const rue t i on of the I., rea timent p 1 a nt. wou I d adve r:',e 1. /
a 1. f eel a 1 a rgo a reheol og I ca I s. i. t: e 1 oca tod t. lie re . in o rdo <" I. o ,-t vo i d the
archeo 1 og i ca 1 site., the pi ant was moved to a not lie r 1 oca [. i on . To i u r I. her
mi t i.gate any possible adverse of fects of tlie construct ion, it has been agreed
til at. (:. he Arkansa s Archeo log i ca I Su rvey w.i 1 I be kept: posted a:; to the wo rk
schedu .1. c; a nd not i tied in the event tlia t pre.h i.s. t o r ic a n: i I a<: L s a re exposed
by the work - 7 f art, i facts are uncovered , work will be ha I ted mil: i 1 the
da |-;i can be appropriate 1 y recovered .
HAD/Icm
cc : State Plann j ng and Deve lopmcnt C J ea r ivij.;huus<
S L a t o 11 i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t :i o n 0 f 1' i. c e r
Engineer i.ng Services , Inc .
Dan Wolfman
;r:,iry of Arkun%o:. i1. on tquol Opporlui^ity Employer
-------
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SERVICES
SUITE 9OO • FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING
LITTLE ROCK 722O1
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
October 2, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1st International Building, 28th Floor
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Re
EIS 0159 - Lakeview Draft
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The State Planning and Devlopment Clearinghouse is in receipt
of the above referenced environmental assessment pursuant to
the State of Arkansas Project Notification and Review System.
To carry out the review and comment process, this office has
notified state agencies and interested organizations. No
adverse comments were received from reviewing state agencies
concerning your environmental assessment. Local issues brought
to our attention are also enclosed for your information and
transmittal to the respective funding agency.
The State Clearinghouse wishes to thank you for your cooperation
in the Project Notification and Review System.
S incerely,
RMc/pt
Enclosures
THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL. SGR
ICES IS AN EQU
VL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
TO: .John Sexton, C']i:i i rm;iii 'A.-rhn i.c::i 1 K'-.-vi cw Couiini tl.rc
FltOM : Tru:;t;cri Hoi do r, Ch i cf Knv i ronmrnUi I I're:; or vat, i on 1) I v [y. I on
DATK: S<:pU:i:ilx:r ]:', I 97S
Th i;". Dcparl irn.:n (; }i;.i:; r\-v.i owed t,h<: :ibovc cli-a f'l, :--.!.a lament. :inc! wi-
}icr'chy concu r w,i. l:h I'.I'ic: i n f'or;n;i t.i or> LIi:it, .i L conL;i i n;;. oo:ru: (.. Inn:
Mp.O wt; :tppi'ovi.:cl .1 M l.,t:f) 'I C 1','in»', TdJ' l.;ikc :v irw ;iru'! inoix: rx:<:<.:n 1,1 y
pi ;u-cd I.nUrv i t:w on l.'.Iic iij--1) ori !.y .'1 i r; f. for ;i St.(,-j> "I !' (Jt-.-sni1.,
TU/jb
STATE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
AND CLEARINGHOUSE
-------
COMMISSIONERS
GUY FENTER
CHAIRMAN
CHARLESTON
OR, RALPH H. BOWERS
VICE CHAIRMAN
HARRISON
ANDREW H. HULSET, Director
Arkansas
and Fish Commission
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
September 21, 1978 :
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Randy McNair, Director
State Planning & Development Clearinghouse
900 First National Bldg.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. McNair:
I received your memorandum of September 15, 1978 and the
attached Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake-
view, Arkansas Wastewater Treatment Facility.
I have reviewed the DEIS and it appears to reasonably
describe the project and the environmental effects, which
will be minimal.
Very truly yours,
David G. Criner,
Administrative Assistant
DGC:ac
SEP22RECD
SrATE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
AND CLEARINGHOUSE
-------
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT: ARKANSAS SOIL S WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION
TO: Randy McNair. Director, State Clearinghouse DATE: September 28, 1978
FROM' John P. SaJx1:c?Pf>7Diasciol^"Soil and Water Conservation Commission
/ / / •tL-—
SUBJECT: Draft EIS(-^ialteWew Wastewatcr Treatment Facilities
FPA KESPONSf
Review of the captioned document reveals no features to which this agency
need object. In general, this type of project will have only beneficial
effects upon water quality in the area.
The Draft EIS appears to fairly and accurately consider all effects of
the proposed action. However, construction of a sewage lagoon in an
area underlain by limestone could result in extensive groundwatcr pollution;
for this reason, extensive geologic investigations should be carried out to
insure that no significant solution channels or sinkholes exist at the
lagoon si te.
JPS:JRY:JRS:cc
tPA agrees that possible ground water pollution from
the lagoons should be prevented. The proposed Lakeview plant
site is indicated to have favorable geological characteristics
with regard to lagoon construction and integrity. I he lagoons
will also be lined to prevent leakage. While existing infor-
mation does not indicate the necessity of extensive geological
investigations at this time, soil borings and associated
testing at the lagoon site will be conducted during detailed
SEP29RECD
.srAfE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
AND CLEARINGHOUSE
-------
ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH
BUREAU OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
Donaghey Building, 13th Floor
Seventh and Main Streets
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
October 13, 1978
Mr.. Roger N. Jungdaus, P.E.
Sverdrup S Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Lakeview, Arkansas Wastewater and
Collection System
Reference is made to your letter dated October 9, 1978, .setting forth another
variation of.on-site disposal system alternatives utilizing septic tank systems.
This office has reviewed that portion of the draft environmental impact state-
ment pertaining to on-site disposal systems and we concur with the conclusions
that public health will be enhanced by the construction of the sanitary sewerage
system and the elimination of the existing septic tank systems.
As pointed out in the environmental impact statement, health hazards from con-
taminated wells will be reduced and unsanitary effluent surfacing from malfunc-
tioning on-site disposal systems will be eliminated. Also pointed out in the
statement, contamination of individual wells by septic tank systems has been
indicated and continued development will increase ground water degradation.
In view of the fact that the suggested alternative of using dual absorption
fields will only improve the situation of surfacing sewage, the danger of under-
ground water contamination will continue. And since the soil types in this area
are not conducive to sewage absorption, this office will be unable to consider
any alternate which would utilize soil absorption, and we highly recommend the
construction of the proposed sanitary sewerage system.
Yours truly,
T. A. Skinner, P.E.
Director and Chief Engineer
Bureau of Public Health Engineering
TAS:jt
cc: Ms, Adlene Harrison,"Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
ENVIRONMENTAL DIV,
-------
r.-
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
October (), 1978
A r ka n s;i s Ue.pa r tmeri t o £ llca 1 1. h
Bureau n f Pnhl i c Hen 1 l.h Kng i neori ng
Donaghcy Building - 13th Floor
7th and Main Streets
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
De a
Refe rence :i :•; made to the Draft Rnv i ronnicnta 1 Impact Statement for the
proposed Ui kevi.ew Arkansas wastowater co I loci i on :ntd t reatinont system.
d i sposa.l
I d provide
h.-js f.-ii led.
cst peri ods
unct. i on for
S in co i issuance of tin- Dra ft 1-11'S , anotlier v;jr:i at. i on of on-.si t.
system a I tern at. i ves has been sup^este.d . Tlii s a 1 le. mat. i ve wo
a second absorpl :i on I i.e.l d win- re the o r i p. i nal ;ib.'-:o rpt i on ('i e I
By a 11. oc n a t i.ng use of the fit.'Ids and thus a 1.1 ow i. nj* po r i odi t:
o f sovora I months for each, t he sys t..em con I d he expected t o
the J i fir of: tho dwe.lling.
Si nee 1 ot sizes are f. re<|iu-nt.Jy ,1 ess than one-ha ! f acre i n I,akcv i ew, and
lli us may not provide su (' f i c:i ent area for a 1 termite f.i elds, .it has been
suggested that, where needed, ne i ghboring vacant lots be condemned and
ut.il ixed for the «';i 11 ornate absorpt i on f ;i el d . App'l y i nj> the absorpt i on
f i old area spec i f icat i oris o f "Rul OK and Regu I at. ions Pertain j n^ t. o Sewage
D.i sposa'l Systems arid 1 nst.a 1 lers , " np to (' i.ve surround i ng two or three
bedroom homes mi gJit ut.il i xe a vacant, one- th i rd acre I ot for their
aj ternate absorption f j el ds based upon typi ca'l per col at i on tests i n the
I-akevi.ew a rea .
In evaluating the Tea si b i .1. i ty of this approach i n. the Final Lake view
EIS, we would apprccj a to your comments at your ear. 1 iest convenience.
P1 ease 1 (.'t me know i. f you have any questions concern i n;* this matter.
S Incero.ly yours,
SVERDRUH a PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Roger N. Jungclaus, PI')
lice: Mr. Paul Bergstrom, I-1PA
.^rfABx'tD-:- '/i/Rif7
CK 5.r>97
KNJ/blj
-------
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
-------
-------
/6, A, OosJodo
WHITE RIVER FLY FISHERS
P. O. BOX S02
MOUNTAIN HOME, ARKANSAS 72653
'.iuestions for Lakeview Hearing's August 21, 1978
1. '.Jhy was Chlorine and Dechlorination specified in this plant'- Trout are very'sensitive
to Chlorine. The other two•sewage plants, Bull"Shoals and Cotter, use Ozone.
2. Since you tell us that the effluent is clean and since there is an out-flow temperature
of about 67 degrees and since the out-flow will be added to that from the Bull Shoals
plant in approximately the sane area, why is it not best to put the effluent into the
lake so that it can be mixed with a lot of water and thus cooled to an acceptable
level for trout. If the water is clean enough for the river why is it not clean
enough for the lake?
EPA RESPONSE
The alternatives of disinfecting with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5. It is
emphasized that, if chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
will be required to protect trout. Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated. Ozonation is a
promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and operation
of ozonation systems are currently in progress. Implementation
of either process will protect the important trout fishery.
Because of new developments in these areas, final selection
of the process will not be determined until detailed Step 2
planning and design. In either case, design and operation
will achieve strict conformance to both State and Federal
water quality standards.
Effects of the White River and Bull Shoals Lake
discharge alternatives are discussed in Sections 3.4d and
5.2.4. Discharge to Bull Shoals Lake was not selected because
of the need for expensive nutrient removal treatment, proximity
to the heavily used Lakeview Recreation Area and nearby resi-
dential areas, discharge to high quality contact recreation
waters, and disadvantages in serving areas below the dam. The
analysis of temperature effects on the White River quality was
based upon wastewater discharge at 95°F.
-------
J'rTAL P-OT^TIOK A^'CI E^A^n*: 0* "315
AU3UST 21, 1078, LAKSVITiV, ARKA/JAJ.
3ood evening, ladies and gentlemen... .my narrar is Robert •;. Lee and I am
a reoident of Lake view, 'of ore I .jet into iny remarks, I would like to
express my appreciation, to so many of you vrho have encouraged us to
continue our probo of the proposed sewer project. Without your financial
and moral assistance, we mi^ht have been reluctant to proceed.
I would like to cover several subjects in this presentation, among which
"1. A ahort history of Lakeview, and how the politicians decided
on the system.
2. Vho stands to profit from the system.
3. ,/ho will pay for it, and how much, and how wesw-the
population figures juggled to pull the wool,over your eyes.
4. Is thero really a pollution problem uow.—what will it be
if the sower system is built.
5. Affect on the '.Thito Hiver.... the fishing.... the tourism.
How ri.jht at the outset let me say that it appears that the proponents
of the sewer system are obligated to establish and sustain four piinto:
POPULATION POLLUTION .UTSX ?LO'.if AfilLITY TiJ PAT
please keep them in mind.
1. At a town council meeting on ifovemuer 3,137fi, ^r. "iarl .Thipple, the town
recorde* , told the audionce that the town was incorporated in 1373
because of the threat presented by a. concrete plant in the area. It was
felt that by incorporating, restrictions could je imposed that would
prohibit the erection o£ similar plants that would oe objectionable to
the town residents. { I wonder if sewer plants fall in that category)
The town was incorporated in JTovenmer 1373, • and the first council meeting
•vao hold on May 13, 1374. Other than the council members, thero were two
XIKflGC persons present: Robert Selzer from the torthweot Arkansas Devolopmont
District, and the late Torreat Scott, a local developer.
At the second town council moetin'j, July 3, 1Q74, ilayor ^honkwiler had,
as hi3 juost speaker a Charloo 31^ter, who supposedly was an enf^iineer.
Slater informed tho Council that the .jtato of .Vrkansaa ha^| *?3 million
dollars to ?ive tiway for oewer systems, and advised the council how to
£o about filing an application. Apparently the cauncil was very
interested in sewers and things moved rapidly in tho direction of the
application proceeding.
Jubse^ucntlJ, several of the council ntemoers visited plant sites and,
X^KKM spoke with officials and engineers re^ardin^ past performances.
Several engineers attended the following council meetings trying to soil
their services, finally, the moment of decision was upon the council
which engineering firm should oe chosen...the field \vas narrowed to faur
by council,vote
-------
*ow, ladies and gentlemen, a funny thing happened....the council decided it
didn't want you and me to know how the engineering firm was to be selected
-30-7151 TOOK A S^CJHT 3ALLOT A SSCR'ST. JALLCT. . .... A PRIVILY? IfOT
A770?.!r*D.'-TH3 IHTTSD STATES 'SSI-ATS
Although most of the engineering firms were within 20 miles of so of Lakeview,
a firm in Springdale, AS, Sngineering Services, Inc. won the vo««. This firm
filed articles of incorporation on September 21, 1971, and has as it's president,
Max Hall, and as vice president, Jerry Martin who, just-prior to his employment
with ?3I, was with the Arkansas Dept of tealth.
ISd like to talk about the application now A3 many of you know, I have
repeatedly asked questions at council meetings... .and in most instances, the
Mayor's reply has been to entertain a motion to close the meeting. As an
illustration: a few moutho ago I asked the Mayor about the filing of the
application....I asked,"Did you prepare this application by yourself, did
someone help you to prepare it, or was it already prepared by soneone else
for your signature????" The Mayor's only reply was to close the meeting.5ow,
I think the questian should be answered for the following reasons The
application is dated September 15, 1975....then^f there are two letters...one
from the Tforthwest Arkansas Economic Development Distriot and one from the
'.rkansas Cept of Local Services. ...the first dated September 29, 1975 and
the second dated September 22, 1975. The town council in it's resolution ,*8
authorized^ the mayor to "make applicationfor a jrant under PL 92-503...this
resolution is dated September 30, 1975 That was my/i next question, Sir.
Mayor....just how one goes about filing an application some 15 days before
authorization. Perhaps some of the other council memoers could tell us i£
they were all aware if this descrepancy. —^"~ C*~G*-&. f
I have copies of the application and the resolution in my files for anyone
who would like to see them<,
I'd like to get on with other things and ask, "',1ha stands to profit from the
building of the system...either directly or indirectly ?"
I have been informed that at an early meeting in ^dgewood 'ay, the engineer
was asked liy a l^elen Oamron, if the sewer would enhance the value of empty
lots....the reply was affirmative in the estimated amount of 3 1,300 per lot.
In reviewing the ^IS report I found that there are 555 lots in the platted
subdivisions ig Lakeview so I started counting....and found lots and lots.
I found in the subdivisions controlled by two of the council members.... there
is 83i percent of the available platted lots In the Shonkwiler division
17« lots or 51.3 per cent, and Chick's division with 45 lots or 12.2 per cent.
The ^IS report shows on page 13, that typical 1/3 acre platted lot in the
Lakeview area is about » 7,000.
How, my friends, don't be taken in by the old realestate salesman's pitch
that this project will increase the value of your property....so what...the
lot next door , the ond down the street would probably increase in value ,too.
The only place it would really matter is in the tax assessor's office.
7fho will pay for. the system... .how .much.... and how were the population
figures juggled to pull Jhe wool over our eyes.
The answer to','Who will pay?" is sitting in the audience tonight, in every •
chair.
Tou see, Ladies ang gentlemen, the proponents of the system are in a bind.....
they have to show a population figure....a substantial figure that would
indicate a lot of people using ATO paying the sewer charges. Aa an example:
The TI3 shows population figures for:
-------
Lakeview 530
M.jewood ^ay 170
Leisure Tills South 110
310
The population figures also include:
Lakeview Use '.rea 135
»ull Jhoals Jt.Pfc. ?50
•445
In addition someone has added:
/
Riverside Trailer pic. 25
and "Other" 70
540
There is no indication who the "Other:!1* are, nor is there any explaination
to why the trailer park residents were not counted previously 3ut those
two entries ICtHKK bring the total of the use areas and trailer park area
to SZ 540....or a population, exceeding that projected for Lakeview.
It appears that thoye 310 ( if there aro that many)will DO paying for tho
sewer. The Corpo of Sn^ineers refuse to make any commitment other than to
cay,"Vrtion a decision to construct the Lakeview system and the cost Tor our
uco of the system is determined, we will evaluate our priority needs with
regard to funds and make a decision concerning connection to the system."
The *ull Shoals State Park saysT"Tou may knoxv that we have recently
completed a sewer at *,ull Shoals and wo will have to study the situation
further and ^et cost quotations from the City of Lakeview before v/e make
a firm commitment for Tull ohoals to tie into the system." According to
a bulletin issued by the Arkansas Dept, of Pollution Control fc "^colo^y,
*ull Shoals Jtate Park was issued a permit to operate, aa shown in tho \pril
1378 release.
Tho proposed cost for servicing the SB two locations is estimated tn be
* 170,500, including * 5000 in intoreatduring construction, for service
lines, treatment plant, engineering, construction observation, le^al and
__aii£iini3trative costs, and land ri,£ht of wuy. _. -—
Tou rememjer that I mentioned how critical the flow factor is to the project,
well, the "IIS shows an estimate for the CO1! waste water flow of 23,000 .jala.
per day. now, ata rate of 1.30 per thousand it comes to 23.30 per day, 337.00
per month or 10,764 per yeacr, JtS and guess who will have to make that up??
If v;e use the same proportinate flow for the 'ull jhoals Jtate Park at the
250 population equivalent that campground would evade charges of 43.40 per day
1432 per month or 17,784 per year added together the CC2 and 3LZJP total
comes to 23,5-43 dollars. ICecp your chock-bock handy while you're ^uegsin*
who in going to pay.
Inasmuch as the COS and 3SCP had an option to join or net to join ( isn't
it strange that you and I haven't the same choice??) and they have not made
a decision, I3m in favor of deleting that portion of the application. I'm
sure that the COT and "53GP have sufficient funds available to solve any
problems they may encounter.
As you can see, population and users are essential to the plan....they havo
to show people usin^ the system then someone/ came up with u real cute
idea.... they decided to count motel rooms...they counted each room, 155 of
them in 14 motels...with 2 persons per room per day, each usia^ SO jjals of
water per day. And then they want to count each room au bcin-j occupied 355
days per year.
EPA RESPONSE
The citizens of Lakeview would not. pay the cost for
serving the Bull Shoals State Park and Corps of Engineers
Lakeview Recreation Area. Eacli would be required to pay its
share of costs based on flow. The options available for
payment by the Corps of Engineers are discussed in Section
3.4e. According to EPA requirements, Federal facilities should
pay their Step 2 and Step 3 capital costs and EPA will fund
/5% of remaining project cost with the local share being 25%.
Since neither' the Corps of Engineers or Bull Shoals
State Park have been ruled out as possible users of the proposed
system, it is appropriate to include them at this stage. If
they do not participate, the monthly user costs for residents
in Lakeview will be higher as discussed in Section 3.4e.
-------
?or those of us whu live here year'round, we know better than that....we recall
the past two or three winters, when there wasn't iSSXf anything in the parking
stalls of the motels but piles of snow. I think the campgrounds were a bit chilly
during those days too. I'm sure if you ask any motel owner in town his
occupancy rate, you'd find him delighted to have a stable 35 per cent or
128 full days per year.
As long as we're talking about who's going to pay...let's examine the information
shown on page 53 of the 3IS. This shows that SO percent of the Lakeview faralies
have an income in excess of 8,000 dollars per year. How, I don't know who made
that survey or how it was made, but I can tell Jou that if he knocked on my door
and a few others I know of, hewould have gotten answers a lot closer to the other
eucjof the scale. A fecent newspaper article showed the per capita income of
Lakeview residents as 1128 dollars.
May we talk about an endangered species for a moment??? I'm speaking of the low
income familied, the advanced aged,and the widows and widowers among us....they
are an endangered species and deserve all the protection we can give them.
The local Social Security office informs me that a widow, at age «5, whose
spouse was covered by minimum SS benefits, receives a monthly check of 12}.30
and,if her gross income is under 1500 per year, she in eligible for supplemental
benefits bringing her up to 189.40 per month.
At a meeting a few montho ago I expressed concern over a widowfs situation
where she would be hard pressed to pay the normal obligations, and then face
a sewer bill of 15 to 20 dollars...and how would she pay for the piping for the
sewer hook-up....a voice from the rear of the room said, "'.'/ell, she can always
mortgage the equity she has in the house, andrnpay it off later." _ //t; ';'
I local resident told me that, at the present time, he is receiving a pension that
is combined with Social Security, and he and his wife get along and pay their
bills In the event of his death the pension stops, and his «d£e would be left
with survivors benefits only...his final words were,vXIf that happens, there is no
way she could hold on to the house and pay any new bills too." T'know friends,
that last sentence applies to my house ISSX also.
As long as we're talking aoout money....Exhibit 13 in the 115 indicated that the
town will be required to repay on it's basic loan, 37,-497 per year, and collect
annual operational and maintenance costs of 48,197, or a total for the year of
84,198 according to the exhibit there are 777 units going to pay that amount,
but it sure doesn't tell us what a unit is on page 34 it says, 'SXiOiHX 'the
unit count is basedon the number of residential and commercial structures in
1977, and those anticipated for 1995 for the town plus the area outside the town
limits to be served by the project (including an equivalent for 3S3P and the
Lakeview Secreation area.)
Page 5 of the ?IS tells us that there are 375 septic systems in the project area,
based upon the number of homes and commercial establishments. This 375 figure.
has been used throughout the project bJB the engineers let's use it and see
what the costs might be. X3XS 84,197 divided by 375 comes out pretty close
to 225 dollars a year, or roughly 13.75 per month and that's assuming that
the original cost estimate was correct. There is a little item 'o.i page 34, which
says "CCS? I»C?.^A37!: CAT It ^XF^Cra! • 33CAU3*! C? IT7LA.TIOX"
EPA RESPONSE
To avoid overloading the plant during peak use
periods, it is appropriate and necessary to design the treatment
facilities to handle seasonal tourists loadings.
The $8,000 family income figure was derived from a
resident survey conducted by the Northwest Arkansas Economic
Development District, Inc. in 1975. The 1974 per capita
income for Lakeview of $1,128 from the 1977 report "Population
and Income" U.S. Department of Commerce, was based on estimates
derived from 1970 statistics broken down on a county-wide
basis. Such localized figures are very uncertain for an area
not incorporated until 1974. Since the $8,000 family income
figure is the most recent and was obtained from local residents,
it is felt to be a reliable indicator of real family income.
As recognized in Section 5.4.3.1c, some of those families with
fixed incomes below $5,000 and $3,000 per year (22% and 3%,
respectively) will have financial difficulty in paying the
monthly charge.
The unit count was used to proportion reasonable
charges based on wastewater contribution. The 375 figure is
not an appropriate figure to use for the user charge analysis
since it does not proportionally allocate costs for serving
multi-unit establishments, such as motels, trailer courts, the
Bull Shoals State Park, and the Corps of Engineers Lakeview
Recreation Area.
The effect of inflation is included in the revised
cost estimates of Chapter 4.
-------
ly"
*ow aaout the Town ---- where io the money coming from for it '3 share of the
project?????
The town has about i,ooo on hand just now ..... on just the construction phase
of the project the minimum city portion ia shown as 493, 000. . -plus land costs
of 25,030, plus <61, 000 in interest during construction. In a memorandum for
record, enjincgj Ro/^er Jurvjclaus noted,"', farmers •lome 'vdmistration loan for
the local share the Lakoview Project ia likely." 5o doesn't tell us who is"Like
to pay it back.
There ia alao a matter of cost overruns, job change orders, open-end contracts
which will require the town to/iascumo all cJjar^en over and above the bid prices.
Ivory time a job chaaje order is made someone sets paid ____
ixa
*ow about the alternatives ..... The 21.} spends °i pa/res on alternate systems,
and 16 on the environmental impact otf Che black-jack oak tree natrt plankton
and others. '
Although the alternatives are shown, it lacks detailed information on costs
and installation. It indicates, in part, that land for up^radin,^ systems could
cost 7,000 for a 1/3 acre lot. ./hat has happened to eminent domain, and the
condemnation of property for municipal use. Pai^e 5» of the 1EIJ says, "the
necessary land will be acquired by the eminent domain process" ( "hat's le^al
talk -which means you v;on't jet as much for the property a::i you thought) One
mirht ask why tho process is exercised for/ the treatment plant project, yet
is not applied XB the upgrading systems scheme.
Tho en,jine';ro from St. Louis had a few OKI around the area, nakia;j surveys
, ;
Twelve wells -were sampled, and analysis
\v e
accurate appraisal of the situation.
Effect on the ;/hite aiver the Fishing. — the 1'ourism.
' o/ iraiilc, hot.. ,
jurisdiction in this ,:>iva. A sul>si..a!;:.i,il
takeviow and surr-oundin;] areas rely on incli.
wells and I.PA is concerned about their pr.;
the problem will not solve it or reduce ij;o
El'A does not believe tho addition
tor a survey of each of the 375 on-si to sy.:. v
Ihere is sufficient information regarding on-r. it.e systems'
performance, pollution, and related health problems as discussed
in Sections ?.. I and 2.2,
-------
Ladies and Gentlemen, please allow me a few moments to look into, the crystal ball
and let me tell you what I think will happen if • the sewer plant is .installed:
'. field day for the land speculators, including multi-family and condominiums.
The SIS says "Vfhile a variety of land use categories can be moee densly develop-ed
the greatest effect is expected in the residential housing market." and ."Local
commercial activity will eventually become more diversified and serve not only
a recreation-BXlQHajjjI oriented population, but also a larger number of permanent
residents."! guess if we help out the land speculators, we might just as well
help the merchants.
Th? town will have to borrow large sums of money.
the gemrrated revenues will not be able to sustain payment of the obligations,
and someone will suggest a Sewer Improvement District, , "to have those vacant lot
owners pay their share of the costs". .. .but rememoer, the sewer lines jo to where
the houses are. This is exactly what the people in ."Sull Shoals thought, but found
that a large portion of the lots are £K not where the sewer lines run, and therefore,
not subject to tax by the SID. After the SID is formed , and the people find out
what is going on, they complain that the monthly charges are too much for their
pocketbooks. . . . the engineer comes up witljr a marvelous solution. . ."More customers
makes the rate lower", and at that time the excuse will be, "we thought Lafceview
would grow faster". "Our original estimate of growth was wrong". I can tell you
right now what L think the -oujjimiiitJite, plans are.... I was standing by the table
in hardy's last March when Max Hall was showing a map to Steve 3urkett,of 2Pi ,
and told him how easy it would be to run a main line along Hte 173 to Midway. I
think this opens a new door to us, and lets us see perhaps the real reason why
the Lakeview plant was designed to handle 300,000 gallons per day.
In closing let me say that our group is prepared to go forward with this matter
until i complete and proper surveys are made and enough evidence gathered that
will assure the residents of this community the best value for their mone#.
.tad one more thing, Of late I have been criticized for harrassing local politicians —
and if what I have done constitutes harrassment, then I willingly wear the shoes,
and I will continu* to wear those shoes each time I seek SK a truthful answer to
an honest question. I respect each persons right to expression. . .whether it be
pro or con. I offer you the right to do just that, but in return, I expect the
same from you.
EPA RESPONSE
Secondary impacts on development are discussed in
Section 5.4.3.2. -
The collection system and treatment plant are not
designed to serve Midway.
ASD
THAT'S 3OT IT LOOKS 7ROM AlfOTSSS POUT OF VI3J.
-------
P. I
,J-E-4* ^^^y'.T^ ^ A^gV .^ ;
o? jL3^^-i.f.^La^>^r_.^-a/j^:if-^. _
-------
ue.
-T"
^O^-<±^-57l^Z, _ •=£&.
sCt^^yL*^ 0~4-4/.*.
-------
_^>-^ (_>O^vix<—/ c'/ £-4 LsU . (^\J-X-**--iLJr'T->^-s*^*~~\~l0
PU3LIC JSASIITG -J.l DRA^T EIS, URUst 21, £978
Ladies and ;»«f on the cost-effectiveness of
alternatives..;uEds>. I have in my possession, six important
documents that v.-crc conspicuously absent from the Library 2nd
from the M & M grocery.
TT-ip fir-nt rinrmrr;pnti "1=: ,T MpninT-i.nrii:i:i from hhp Dffi^p nf*
LPA RESPONSE
While there has been no documented ur reported
disease outbreak in the Lakeview area attributable to septic
tank systems, EPA does not agree that :,;i<:h outbreak is necessary
to demonstrate health or ground writer , .''. ,r;: ion problems resulting
from septic tank systems use. FPA ii.is i,:•',.,-: ined sutficient
evidence of ground water pollution anij potential health problems
through well sampling, survey of septic tank systems, and
evaluation of the area geology, soils, and development charac-
teristics, as discussed in Sections 2.J., 2.2, and 2.3.
-------
of snail towns, and especially those with low incomes per house-
hold.
He also pointed out that -when Engineers design a Project
such as ours, they like to predict high population growth rates
and high water consumption. The high growth rate supports the
arugment of "buy now - someone else will pay later." The high
needed
water use supports the over-design/to accomodate futmre land
development.
*.*. „_ , S°°& _. and sons not so good.
in the Draft BIS we have some/iaf onr-ation/ It states
over and over that Lakeview is a very fast-growing community.
"Tot sal The 1978 Special Census showed an embarassingly low
growth rate - only 3^- persons in three years. Two years ago
the Engineers had predicted a growth of ISO, which the EPA had
lately reduced to SO. How. optimistic can you be? On water
consumption, the SPA said people like us will use about 75
figure
gallons per person per day. In Sdgewood Bay the
the
is about 60 gallons. But/Engineers have-decided to design a
treatment plant based on I'+O gallons per person per day. This
is a clever way to increase the plant capacity beyond what SPA
is permitted to fund.
The second important document that was not made available
is a I'lemoc.from James F. Kreissl of the USEPA office of Research
and Developmegjt. His Memo is entitled "USEPA Response to Public
Law 92-500, Relating to Hural Wastewatar Problems." In it, he
says: "The concept of conventional sewers for smaller and
sparsely developed communities is now being seriously challenged
by both Federal Grant Approving Authorities and by .local:
connunities who' must pay ezhorbitant user's costs for the
1 privelege" of being sewered.1" "Since the cost can be 2 to V
EPA RESPONSE
The 1978 special census data was not available for
inclusion of the Draft EIS, however, it has been incorporated
in the Final EIS in Section 5.4.la. It is concluded that the
Draft EIS population projections for the Lakeview area are
still reasonable.
Estimated present and future sewage flow of 100
gal/capita/day was used for treatment plant design. The
preferred method of predicting flows is to use an analysis of
water use records. Data for the Edgewood Bay and Lakeview-Midway
water associations were considered, however, factors such as
the use of private wells, the influence of service areas other
than Lakeview, and highly variable water use during winter
months make the data difficult to fully interpret. The
Arkansas Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Sewage Disposal
Systems specify a design flow of 75 to 100 gal/capita/day for
single family dwellings and 50 to 65 gal/capita/day for motels
(per bed space). EPA guidelines suggest 60 to 70 gal/capita/day
for residential use in towns with projected ten year populations
of 5,000 or less. Residential per capita use of 75 gal/day
was chosen as a reasonable figure based upon water use data
and other guidelines. The tourist and commercial wastewater
flow at Lakeview is estimated to increase the current design
wastewater flow to approximately 100 gal/capita/day based upon
two person occupancy of each of the 155 motel units and an
associated 60 gal/capita/day. The projected design flow is
also based upon 100 gal/capita/day.
-------
tiu.es as >:;uch as -in larger communities, the need for feasible
alternatives is clear."
not
The third document that we did/find is a Heno froc
Douglas H. Costle. ilr. Costle tool-: over Itossell Train's job
as Administrator of US3PA. His Meao is in res-.onse to Xr. Train.1 s
a-opeal on beualf of small communities. It is entitled "CONSTRUCTION
GHATITS Program Requirements KeEorinduia :fo. 77-8 for tha Tundin-3 of
Sewage Collection System Projects. It describes the 3?A. Policy
for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 95-?00 w;,ich is
the federal v/atcr Pollution Control Act of 1972. Costle's
lleno.was issued effective in June 1977. It is 5 very important
doc'jnent. First, it has retroactive provisions that ;:;,I'.:D it
apply to the La..::eviev; Area Proji'^t. Ar.d, rore ii:;oort'intly, it
tells the SPA Regional offices what ti'.ey can vio and vrti-it they
cannot do in the way of funding of v/astevn fcer disposal Tro.';ccts»
I •.•/ill ;;et bac • to PPM 77-3 in a .r.oEient, but f'.'.rst let
::s mention three other important dociurjents that •.-;er(-; not provided.
These doci.":;;:ents from tha S."'A office of Research and Developcnent
were published last October under the general title of
"Alternatives for Scall './astewater Systems." :io. 1 of the
series is titled "On-Sita Disposal/Sentage Treafcent and. Disposal."
?To. 2 is "Prossttre Sewers and 7acui;u Sewers." -'«nd .'To, 3 is
"Cqst/Sffectiveness tealysis. After careful study, it is my
considered opinion that we would be both stupid and irresponsible
to males any decision until we have digested these si;: documents.
Let se ::ive you just one quotation frorj pa^e 6 of the
report on OnJ'Site Disposal. I quote "The trend toward ~ravity
scwers with a connon central tra-.itn.ent plant has eliminated many
v/orthy alternatives fron; consideration. If this bias can be
changed and ths noncentral concept used, environmental and
-------
monetary costs of v.-astewater facilities in many coEX-unities could
be significantly reduced by reducing the siseo:?, or eliminating-
the collection system and by simplifying the treatment facility."
On-site disposal facilities are considered most appropriate
where. the following three conditions are found:
1) Low population density.
We are told that the low population density advantage
we now enjoy will be cured as soon as we get 'sewers.
2) Rocky and Hilly terrain.
Hocks and hills we have in abundance.
3) Shallow bedrock.
On this point there is mch disagreement. The Engineers
maintain bedrock is between three and five feet deep. I knew
differently, and said so in the record of the Public Eearing two
years ago. The SPA investigated and found that I was right and
tha 3ingineers were wrong. A. probable source of 1he the data used
by the Engineers may have been from studies of soil conditions
in Washington and 3enton Counties in the Northwest corner of
Arkansas. Heal data on our part of Baxter County would not have
supported their claim that (1) soil conditions will not perr.it
septic systems to function, and (2) that extensive blasting all
over the project area will be required to make trenches for
the sewers. Let me make this comment on geology for what it
may be worth. The. soils in Washington and Henton County are
from the Mississippian aga. Our soils~in Baxter County are
Ordovician and have, an extra 1QO million years b£ exposure to
the weather. They could be better.
The Engineers must have known that extensive- blasting all
over the area would not be needed. The have figured on the cost
of only 3200 cubic yards of rock excavation. That much will
EPA RESPONSE
EPA feels that the discussion of alternative systems
in the Draft EIS is adequate.
Soils classification and characteristics used in the
Draft EIS were based on Soil Conservation Service field inves-
tigations and studies in the Lakeview area. The soil types
assigned from these studies generally show the depth-to-rock
to range from 0 to.12 feet. Field reconnaissance and other
information gathered during the EIS study further indicate
highly irregular depth-to-rock in the Lakeview area. Baxter
County soils are derived from the weathering of Ordovician age
rocks. The soils have not had an extra 100 million years of
exposure to the weather.
Revised project cost estimates include provision for
10,000 cu yd of rock excavation.
-------
cone out of the trench alomr the shoreline of 3d;;ewood 3ay alone.
More on that later.
For now, let.'s set back to I-!r. Costle's Policy Memo 77-8.
Some of its renrireKents "ire svuniarized on. pa.^e 3 of the ^IS.
For example, there must have been a community in existence on
this site back before 1972 when the law on '.rater pollution
can.e into .existence
control '.-/as enacted. But if the cocmunity //Ap/ after 1972
any mistakes we made would be our own responsibility. Since our
community was here before 1972, and if we now have a public
health problem or if we ar-: polluting the ;Trcv.ndwater, then maybe
the 3?A can ^ive us back soce of our own :.'.oney for a sewer EVE ten.
So far no one has been able to document a public health problem,
and the evidence for groundwater pollution is not at all persuasive.
But hold on, there is another string. This one is passed
over very lightly and I think, is stated wrongly in the 3ISV p.3-
.Juote: "Treatment works funded under the grants pror-rac oust
also represent the most cost-effective alternative." I think
the law actually covers both parts, i.e. the collection systsn
and the treatment facility. :/uote from 77-3: ".the Facility
Plan must demonstrate, where population density is less than 10
persons per acre, (as it is in Lakeview) that alternatives are
clearly less cost-effective than new gravity collector-sewer
construction and centralized treatment."
PHK 77-8 has one more restriction. This one is designed.
to. prevent SPA from funding any project that will primarily
benefit future real estate developments. It does this -1 ijrtiKm itegR
by liaitin" the size of the fund-able project to acconodate liEited
growth - such as may have occurred sines! 1972 This makes ~ood
sense. If you need to sewer houses built before 1972 you could
hardly bypass houses on the same street that frere built after 1972.
[PA RtSPONSE
Based upon well sampling and survey of septic tank
systems' performance and evaluation of the areas' geology,
soils, and development, characteristics as discussed in Sections
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, LPA lias obtained sufficient evidence of
ground water pollution and potential health problems.
Ihe term "treatment works" is used correctly since
it includes "collection system and the treatment facility" as
defined in EPA regulations, 10 CFR 35.905-23.
Cost-effective analysis is "an analysis performed to
determine which waste treatment management system or component
part thereof will result in the minimum total resources cost
over time to meet the Federal, State, or local requirements."
While improving on-site systems may be cheaper initially, EPA
does not feel it. is most cost-effective considering long-term
environmental and public health protection.
-------
Let ne quote the provision in FBM 77-8: "No award may be made
for a new sewer system in a community in existence on October 18,
1972 unless it is further determined by the Regional Administrator
that the bulk (generally tea- thirds) of the flow design capacity
through the sewer system will be for waste waters originating
from the community (habitation) in existence on October 18, 1972."
This provision, is known as the two-thirds rule.
The population of Lakeview in 1972 is not known but probaly was
about two-thirds of the Wk- count in 1578. This takes care of
the two— thirds rule.. If a sewer system is designed to_accomodate
the large population projected for 1995* the two-thirds rule would
have to be applied over again for each, five year period. Hefora
funding is approved I hope SPA will explain how this can be
done under existing law.
-Wkerr I was sworn- vta-X-aroiBtsad— tu Lel'l Lhb Ire Hi, — the1 -whole
gKriuij liub'-bfaa- -truth ». This—is- ar-bi# ureter ' andTrwoTi*!:
i tin ofiq^trijuearaftqa. There are three subjects I want
covered and I will do it if nobody else does.. These are:
1) Pollution
2) Price
3) Pos sibilities
I want to talk about pollution and .then I will sit down
for a while. Pollution could be caused by
1) Septic Systems
Or I"-;,
2) Sewers
When I read the the Environmental. Assesment, the Facility
Plan and the Draft SIS' it seemed that we were comparing
Malfunctioning Septic Systems with Perfect Sewer Systems.
I think it would be equally biased to compare Perfect Septic
EPA RESPONSE
The "two-thirds rule" allows routine system design
and grant eligibility for a 50% increase in sewer line capacity.
In smaller communities the 8-inch minimum sewer line size,
required by state and EPA standards of good practice, generally
provides substantial excess capacity and, thus, negates the
effect of the two-thirds rule.
-------
with Malfunctioning Sewer °ysterns.
Can you imagine a situation in which EPA would hire a St.
Louis Engineering firr.; to cone here and see if thay could find
a fev perfectly functioning • septic systems? Then we could cay
"The present system is beautiful. Why should we spend millions
for something less sood?" That would be -pretty biased.
I would Ilia to take a middle course and compare ordinary
properly installed septic systems with ordinary sewers in the
context of our local conditions of soil and bedrock. •' '. -'^-^'
My information on how septic systems do their job is taken
from the EPA research brochure on On-Site Disposal. On page 18
they show how effectively the soil in a septic system absorption
field removes coliform bacteria from the effluent. This particular
trench was in a medium sand soil. The percolation test \-as not
fjiven but L. suspect it was faster than our clay soils, and
therefore would have been somewhat less effective. 7our sa:..^les
were taken at different levels about one'foot from the surface
of the trench. The samples were analyzed for coliforn bacteria
and compared with the raw effluent. After pass3;re through only
oaw £uui- of undisturbed soil the coliform bacteria had been
reduced by 99.99 plusfiin sample 1, by 99.6fj' in 2, 99.99plus in 3
and 99-97& in sample 1+. ?rom this and other studies they conclude
that 2 to 3 feet of soil will filter out all bacteria and viruses.
Ark.. Law k02 requires a minunum of four feet of soil between
the bottom of the trench and bedrock. In most of the Lakeview
Area we have much more than that.. Flow much more I do not know.
I have asked EPA for well drilling records to see how deep
they have to., drill to hit bedrock. I am waiting for this
information. I have other information from geological studies
that sinkholes such as we have here are unlikely to be formed
EPA RESPONSE
The EIS comparc;> the existing septic tank systems
with minimal practical controls and, in many cases, marginal
conditions for installation, with the anticipated results of a
carefully controlled collection and treatment system. EPA
recognizes that there are septic tank systems that are operating
satisfactorily without effluent surfacing, however, this does
not alter the fact that a significant number of systems have
failed and ground water pollution is evident, comprising
potential health problems.
Suitability of soils is based on various factors.
tow permeability and fraqipan layers of soils in the Lakeview
area may result in saturated condition-; with a corresponding
decrease in pollutant removal efficiency and early absorption
field failure. Excessive rock content of the soil may constitute
a coarse media with resultant loss of pollutant removal
efficiency. Excessive rock may also reduce the effective soil
absorption area and result in early absorption field failure.
Excessive slope and inadequate deptn-to-rock are limiting in
some areas. These factors are of much concern in the Lakeview
area as reflected in the soils classifications and ratings for
septic tank systems. Municipal and domestic well log records
were reviewed for depth-to-rock information; however, it was
found that the data were not sufficiently available or reliable
to draw meaningful conclusions in the Lakeview area. A very
extensive boring program would be necessary to define the
depth-to-rock profile. The statement that "sinkholes such as
we have here are unlikely to be formed if the soil is less
than 33 feet deep" is not true.
-------
if the soil is less than 33 feat deep. In any case, if septic
systems are properly installed under suitable site conditions
there is virtually no> possibility of gdZuting our wells "-with
bacteria by tha downward percolation of septic tank effluent.
Surfacing is another problem. It can generally be avoided
by proper installation in a large enough field.. All of the
systems ins-tailed under the supervision of our County Sanitarians
seem to have functioned as they should, I understand the
Sanitarian has aroused some ire by enforcing the law,
There is much said in the Draft SIS about nitrate and
chloride and organic pollution in shallow wells.. There is alss
some scare talk. One reference threatened cancer if you drink
tha water. The Draft 3IS on page 8 says: "Szcessive nitrates
in drinking water may cause methemoglobinemia, a serious and
sometimes: fatal, disease of infants." I don't understand why
this use of scare tactics when the very next sentence says:
"The highest concentrations found did not approach the. drinking
water health standard. The current health standard allows up
to 10 milligrams per liter. The two highest levels found in
wells were >+,6 and 2.7 mg/1, definitely on the safe side.
The- inorganic constituents that night have coir.e from septic
systems, inaddition to nitrate, are chloride and Phosphate..
Phosphate comes from the use of detergents in laundry and dish
washing. Except for the two wells noted, all others had nitrate,
chloride andphctajihate contents that were: close to the concentrations
present in Ehe water of 3ull Shoals Lake. It is interesting and
probably significant that the • two. wells having- elevated nitrate'
and chloride.did aot have elevated phosphate. Therefore, septic
It was not the intent of EPA to use scare tactics
but to point out the significance of the elevated nitrate
levels found in the wells. While no nitrate health problem is
evident at the levels detected, the potential for such a
problem is not precluded because of increased pollution from
further septic system use and development, possible seasonal
variations, or higher levels at wells which have not been
monitored.
The results are not unexpected since phosphorus
tends to become fixed in the soil and is not likely to leach
out, while nitrate and chloride are more mobile.
-------
pollution froc nearby sources is n.ost unlikely.
There are other core persuasive sources of nitrate and
chloride in :>roundwater. For example, Rainwater contains
nitrate. The luxuriant vegetation all arox:nd us is custainod
by nitrates that are foraed by the action of li^htenlns on air.
3very waterer of house plants knows that rainwater is best.
And of course, we all help nature by spreading lar=;e amounts
of lawn fertilizers. A single bag of arjnonium nitrate is
capable of 'polluting' a million gallons of drinking water.
Chloride could cote fror; sentic systen.s. Lar :e amounts
are. used for re^eneratin;- water softeners. However, there is
an l:;.-rortant but highly variable natural source. Our soils
wera laid down in »e:jlo;;ic time in a salty sea. Salt is constantly
bein-- leached out of the soil and rocits. One needs only to :ra
over to Oklahoma where: salt leaching is so :.uch of a rroolen
that the Corp of injjineurs wants to s^end ;6CO million on a
vast project to keex) salt out of the Arkansas ?.iver to improve
its use for irrigation.
Orrranic catter in watar from shallow wells has been
attributed to saitic- tank sources- A little arithmetic showir
this to be unlikely. Under Arkansas law you need about 1.5 acres
of land to have both a seotic tank and a well. If your -arcolation
test is a conservative 20 minutes you will be required to have
'+20 square feet of absorption trench. Divide ^+20 square feet
by 1.5 acres and you get 0.65> of your land.. The other 99f» is
covered with decaying ,-;rass and leaves. I would have to vote
for decayi.ni' vegetation as the major source.
So r:.uch for pollution froc septic systecs. '3y now it
should be- evicent th : t we have very little.
How consider gravity sewers, and rei:;ei;.ber we are deali:-.?
EPA RESPONSE
Nitrate in rain water and potential nitrate pollution
from fertilizers are recognized as sources; however, EPA dot",
not agree that thei.e are the major contributing factor1; in the
elevated nitrate levels found in the Lakeview area.
Salt, pollution of the Arkansas River in Oklalionia is
caused by both man made and natural sources. The natural
sources are formed in rocks of Permian A
-------
10
with the same soilconditions and underlying fractured rock as
for septic systems. Bacteria are filtered out by soil but
they can travel long distances-in fissured rock and especially
in solution, channels and underground caverns. .
We all know of the recent disaster at West Plains, Mo.
Their terrain is just like-,ours - rocky and Bully and having
numerous sinkholes. Last May-when their sewage lagoon collapsed,
the polluted water went underground for many miles and caused
hundreds of people to.get sick. They had a real bad public
health problem.
rfow what do our authorities plan fop- us? In the
3nvironmental Assessment, page 31 the engineers say: " Essentially,
the entire project area where facilities are proposed to be
constructed as shown on the Layout Map at the back of this
report, will be subject to-blasting. Most of the blasting' is
anticipated to occur during construction of the lines, with
only EinimaJ-blasting at the treatment plant site,."
I don't really believe it will be this way, but the
Sngineers had to say it to support their allegation that the-
3 to 5 foot depth to bedrock would preclude the functioning of
septic' systems, I don't think they believed it either. Vihen
they computed the cost of rock excavation the soil suddenly
became much thicker, and only 3200 cubic yards would be- blasted
~.-..-.if,
out, at acost ofA1&3,000. (Compare this with the Bull Shoals
system where 57,000 yards of rock will be blasted at a cost of
nearly .5600,000). If the average depth to bedrock in the Lakeview
Area is ^ feet and 3200 yards of rock is removed from a two.foot
wide trench, the average trench will be only 'f feet and *f inches
deep. There is no easy way to lay gravity sewers across our
O~n,J- I.—'-i'J-
-------
11
cottor.i oi" the trench without having most of the pipe above ground
on trestles-
Of cours:; it won't be like that. Take a closer look at
the la/out map. ~/JU will ;;ee a lar;;:e sewer main alon/j the
shore of Bull Shoals Lake. It extends froia the western boundary
of Glen Cove to the eastern boundary of Leisure Mills subdivision.
It is approximately 2.25 miles in length and 10 inches in diameter /T.
cost of the way. About 1/8 miles (9000 ioet) will be laid in
the 'Sn;;ineer's Strip' just above hi'h water mark. Much of the
'strip' has little or no soil cover. The building sites adjoining ~
'strip' have minimal soil cower. There are approximately 22
homes on these sites, of which three were li.'-ted a$ possible
•iroblerns. This is the area in which extensive blasting would
occur. A two-foot vide trench 9000 feet Ion:- would only have
to be l!-..5 feet into the rock to yield tr.e entire budget of 3200 ysrd;
'.ihy do I aake a point of this? The ksy words for privity
sowers are 'infiltration' and 'exfiltration'. Gravity sever
pipe leaks like a sieve. That is why the Mountain ':'.o;^= tr'j'ite.ent
plant is overwhelmed whenever it rains. There are other •ij.iz.-lts.
?air.ly recently, plans were bein,-? made in Hot Spririrs, Ark to
build a 20.. million jallon treatment plant. Instead, they decided
it would be cheaper to reduce the leakage and build a 12 million
gallon plant. Reminds one of the dyin" Texan who was too big
for any coffin - so they gave hir.. a bottle of n.ilk of magnesia.
Zou rei.'.eir.ber t',;e program on 60 Minutes about Grandview Lak;:, Ind.
They poured 15,000 jalljns of water in one manhole and it never
reached the next one 300 feet away. Last week in 3assvillc= I
heard the sane kinti of story. I think they said 50,000 gallons.
In the thrv'j dociments on the Lakeview system that w\
have had so far, the word 'e;:filtration' is never used. The
-------
12
word 'infiltration1 is -used only twice.. It appears on rages
2 and 11 of the Facility Plan.of Sept. 1976 in the following
context: "The maximum wet day flow, was determined by adding
..the maximum allowable, infiltration based on 100 gallons per
inch of pipe diair.eter per mile per day.to the. maximum dry day
6^. ;-..•'->.:.//
flow." /The Engineer promises: "The collection system will be
designed and constructed so as to minimize the amount of .
infiltration into the system. This will significantly reduce
the flow into the plant." end of quote.
Hot only does water leak into gravity sewer pipe during
wet weather but it carries with i± soilvao»eon»ft*B. If this
were not so we would not need manholes every 3°0 feet to clean
out the mud. And grit disposal at the treatment plant was
considered enough of a problem to warrant mention.
The crux of the problem, however, is not infiltration
but 'exfiltration'. It ray be a tnitism, but I believe the holes
in the aipe are the sama size in both directions.. If water leaks
in when the trench is wet, should not a comparable amout of raw
sewage leak out when the trench is dry?
Our 3ngineer is allowed a leakage- rate of 1QO gallons per
inch of gipe diameter p.er mile of pipe per dsy. For a mile of
10 inch pipe that is 1000 gallons ger day. I have checked with
Bull Shoals and their allowance is 200 gallons. Then I checked
with SPA and was told that the normal expectation is 200 to 250
o ^ • ,
gallons. • \ , , s—<•
According too the Layout Map; in the Facility Plan there
will be about 9000 feet of mos'tly 10 inch .pipe within 300 feet
of the lake shore, where it borders on our swimming area in
Sdgewood 3ay. This line receives sewage from all .of the houses
(J.i-'-i'S.».rTr.*. ;VX~ •
in Crlen Cove, Sdgewood 3ay,, Leisure Hills/and Forest Shores, szcept
EPA RESPONSE
With modern construction technology, material technology,
inspection, and testing, a new sewer line should not and will
not incur infiltration in excess of about 200 gal/inch of pipe
diameter/mile/day. The joints used for the gravity pipe in
the Lakeview system will be the same as those used for pressure
pipe and will minimize infiltration to a more stringent design
criteria of 100 gal/inch of pipe diameter/mile/day.
Those sewer lines which do experience problem infil-
tration (generally older lines) do not necessarily exfiHrate.
Infiltration usually means that the ground water has built up
above the pipe flow line and the external head has reached a
point that allows flow to enter the pipe. The required head
may be feet or inches depending on the nature of the leak and
the infiltration will vary with the head. Since an unsur-
charged 8-inch pipe could not have more than an 8-inch head,
this would limit exfiltration to a large extent. Also, leaks
above the flow line of the pipe, including manholes, can
infiltrate but not exfiltrate. Also refer to Section 5.2.5.
-------
the/*fro» draining into id^ewood Bay, we wor.id be;sewa;'e center
of the entire project.
At the low rate of 100 gallons per inch of pipe dia;;.eter
->v. >,-. .
this 900O foot section orttrtal leak as li'.tla at 1700 gallons of
raw sew.a;:e per day. If we use the moire realistic 200 to 250
jLo'-r-j-1'1- :' •> •'•""' '• ' -y»w J-.'-."••]"-
gallons, it would be *boo-f, ^000., ind remenb^r, this^would be
liakinjc directly into the fractured rock forr-atians that are
laced with solution channels and fissures. ?rorr: there the raw
siwa--9 would spread out into the horizontal and verier! o -enin;;s
in the rock L'orn.ation. Soir.e would flow toward tho la'-:.~ and
i.r/ade our swiia^in:-; place. One answer is to 'juit sv;L;..nir_:r.
I aa much rr.ore concerned about the destination of the stuff that
speads in the opposite direction, od.'ewood Bay '.roll "o. 1 is
oi;l,7 't&Q feet iway, and well !>'£>.2 is "j'oou~ 1000 feet "i;rrf -
h.ardly a safe distance.
Ths SP.V is .aware of this1 inpendin,:; disaster. It is
sentioaeu on pare 't3 of the Draft ilS as follows: "Several 3-
and 10-inch gravity collection lines 'are planned to ilosel.' follov/
the shoreline of Bull Shoals Lake. Much of this lakeshore area •
is rather staep with shallovr, fractured rock, ar.d is close to
heavily-used water contact-recreation arc-as. Sewer-line leakage
in these rocky areas can result in nearly direct seepage: Into
the. lake, causing pollution and possible health risks."
I have another concern with the gathering of all this
v/'astawater into one Inrje line. The -
-------
lit
two major sinkhokes. This seer.s like poor engineering because
of the danger that deep trenches cut into the surface could
cause an instability that @ould trigger a catastrophic collapse
when water accumulates after a very heavy rain. Such sinkhole -'•
collapses have happened repeatedly at West Plains.
The danger of sinkhole collapse can be avoided if the
Engineers will simply slope the entire .length of. the lakeshore
collector main toward Glen Cove. You would still need the
pumping- station. But, by locating 'it at the Glen Cove terminus,
the pressure main would go directly across Glen Cove subdivision
^.•^^.~ . ..,,.-.v
to feed, into the^main ^Jr Highway 178. This would avoid crossing1
any sinkholes aad save- almost a mile of expensive pressure pipe.
However, it would not relieve the pollution problem of our
swimming area and our wells..
I hava one more thing toe say about Edgewood 3ay, V/hen
it was originally laid out there was no plan for later addition
of sewers,, so the water mains were, laid behind the houses.
Therefore, tha Engineers had no choice but to lay the sawers
in front of the houses. This will double the cost of connecting
in many cas:es. It will also damage our streets.
As long as this project remains in Phase L, Ed^ewood Bay
may still have a choice. If put to,a referendum would anyone
in Edgewood Bay willingly sacrifice our swimming, our we!3s or
even our streets?
**t this point I will gladly relinquish the podium if
I will be called back later to discuss cost projections.
EPA RESPONSE
Sinkholes are two major types, solution and collapse.
Solution sinkholes develop slowly beneath the soil mantle
without physical disturbance of the rock in which they are
developing. Collapse sinkholes are produced by roof collapse
above an underground void and, therefore, appear suddenly.
Highway 178 crosses a collapse-type sinkhole, while solution-
type sinkholes are evident in Edgewood Bay, Glen Cove, and
Lakeview. Since failure prediction for sinkholes is about the
same as for earthquakes, and the entire Lakeview plateau area
has potential for sinkhole failures, there is little to be
gained by rerouting sewer lines to avoid existing sinkhole
areas. The proposed treatment plant location in the alluvial
flood plain area is not subject to sinkhole problems.
Because of topography and the elevation of residences
to be served, the suggested interceptor routing toward Glen
Cove would be difficult to design without an additional pump
station.
-------
;.iith our li:.-itsd population desit/ .if less than 10 person
per acre, the i?A is prohibited f.-or;; funding any proposal ey.cept
the one that is most cost-effective. Therefore we will need
to know what a new sewer sycter: and treatment pl.int will cost.
V.'c will also need to know the cost of u^gradini^ our, on-sit
-ti^Cr^-^
disposal facilities. The SPA r:,ust be confident that thoy ca
be up°;radec; satisfactorily because ti:eycai;.e up with a very
precise estimate of the cost. To find out each terser:.? sh'/re £ij
We need Topulat-.^n data.
- 'four share
Tour share can be n:ade to look vsry -.odest by ^.tt.L:i;-- too f::w
collars in the cost or by putting too many people in the population.
Bob Lee iias^already cocmentcc on the population projections
Urc
and how fe
s predicting t^:e cost will run twice the
esti;::ate. '.;e were advised to coEr:".ire, witii Cotter-GassvilJ •=
because of similar populations, .is can ;;et a aore current
estimate by coapariri^ with 3ull Shoals. Their population is
larger but their ;;ore compact shape- needs only a little ;;.ore
pine; 1^1,000 lineal feet cor.'.pared with 121,000 for LilK.viev? =
1971)-
1975
1976
1977
1973
Cotter
Gassville
1.5
2.0
2.2
2.3 bid
3-b'-*-
Lakeview
-
-
1.6
1.6
2.0
Shoals
3-3
[.PA KtSPONSf
Cost.-el f ecLivc does not. necessarily mean the cheapest
initial investment. In the lakevicw area, continuing and
increasing problems ol septic system failures, ground water
pollution, and health problem:, can be expected, even if current
documented failures are provided with limited, localised
remedies. U'A does not believe such partial remedies are cost-
effective cons i define) long-term environmental and public
heal t.h protection.
done
-------
Price 2
On the cost of upgrading on-site disposal systems, I can
only say that the Draft 313 is in part a response to:the
questions I raised tiro years ago in the record of tfcce Public
Searing. These questions should have been answered long ago.
J
They were not. There is a reouirment in. the instructions for
the preparation, of the Facility Plan that a.n questions raised
afr the Public Hearing must be answered. My questions were
unanswered but not unnoticed. On page 6 of the Facility Plan
the Engineers stata: "Alternate Us. ^ consists of upgrading- the
operation,maintenance and efficiency of existing facilities.
Specifically, this would include repairing and extending1 the
numerous malfunctioning septic systems..." The Engineers simply
swept the whole question under the- rug by damning septic systems
with the pejorative, adjectives 'numerous' and "malfunctioning1.
Absolutely no dajta were give.
- Because the- engineers failed to do the required work, we
are now put to the added expense of preparing the Draft SIS and
the inconvenience: of this Public Hearing. The Engineers were
paid well enough for wkat tha; accomplished. The environmental
Assessment and Facility Plan cost us approximately :$1 per word.
At long last we are getting some information. You will
have to be the judge of its value. I have serious reservations.
The Draft SIS" outlines what was done to collect this
information.on page 6. "A survey was made in September and
October, 1.977, to, determine the extent of septic-tank-system
problems, with emphasis on identifying systems which have had
problems." It is this admitted emphasis on seeking out specific
problems that biases the results and does not permit the, data
to be used as a survey. JTever-the-less these AHA data are used
EPA RESPONSE
"The Problem and Issues" which were the factors
involved in the decision to prepare the EIS are included in
Section A of the Executive Summary.
-------
Price 3
EPA RESPONSL
on page 19 of the SIS as if a bona fide survey had baen made..
Records were developed on some 50 systems in the Lakeview
area. Some '+0 of these were sought out on the basis of leads
furnished by Kayor ^honkv/iler and by asking people for referrals
to neighbors that might have problems.. The rest in?re from the
County Sanitarian's records on people who had contacted him for
advice on repairs. In this way 'J list of 28 people out of the1
50 considered hatfe,or have corrected, problems it one time or
another. I:: this list all but 7 had long since been corrected.
28 over 50 gives: a problem rate of 56>. This, evidently,
wasn't bad enough, so seven :nor-: problems were counted in th.3
outlying areas. These were included in the numerator but not
in the denominator to raise the problem rate to 70,',', as of
October 1','77. This percehtai-e was then applied to., the number
of septic systems in existence in Lakeview-SsSwr as of 1975.
The result was 126 systems in L.akeview needin:- major rehabilitation.
Remember that EPA is not illowed to .fund any system
unless it is the most cost-effective, The cost .'ig-ure our
analyst selected is 315,5^ average cost for eachfeystem upgraded.
If you multiply the number of alleged orobles systems by the
average cost of o!5> 5^0 you get the total capital cost of
vl,958,fl^0 cited in the SIS. This is for Lalceview pwoper/ and
if extended to the 375 septic systems in the area on the same
70f» ratio, you will get a total cost of ^.l million for- repairs
to compare with 2,0^1, 000 for a totally new sewer system.
I am told by SPA that this computation is for purposes
of illustration to arrive at a ^er house cost so it,doesn't
y
matter if Jrou ur.e the whole area or just a part of it. This is
true. But I am still curious as to how our analyst arrived at
)16.18 :erkonth,for the upgraded systems.
EPA doci' not believe that seekint:) out. specific
problems compromises Lhe results of the septic Lank systems
survey. The survey mentioned in I'J'A I'royram Requirements
Memorandum //-8 is not necessarily a random statistical survey.
It. is a survey t.o determine extent, of problems and mal functions
much .is one would survey the damage caused by a storm or
flood, lor' the' time that, was available, it. was much more?
practical to investigate those areas where problems had been
evident, rather than try to examine every system. t PA ayrces
that, there are residences in the Lakevlew community wish
oivsite systems that, function adequately and may continue to
function with proper care. However, this does not change the
sit.nation for those systems that have failed or that can lie-
expected to fail in the future because of limitations ol site
conditions, poor ma inlenance, or improper use. Nor does t.his
chaiuje the qround water' pollution problem resulting from
extensive septic lank systems use, even from systems that
function without effluent surtacimj.
Environmental effects must, be considered in the
cost-el feet ive analysis. EPA will fund Itrj most cost-effective
plan with Lhe least environmental impac'..
-------
Considering that three-fourths of the cost would be funded by
an SPA grant, the local share would be 4-89,510 payable over 20
years. The only way 126 families could pay off a W9,510 dollar
loan in 20 years at 316.18 pensonth would be if that loan was
interest free. If so, I would certainly liire to meet our
analyst's banksr-1 On the other hand, if there is no interest
charge, this could be a once only cash transaction. Our average
family would have to. put up nearly 4-000 dollars.
3y now it should be obvious that our analyst merely forgot
to include the 8'J interest charge. 7or these families to pay
off the 4-39,510 in 20 years at 8,=» interest would actually
cost 333.10 per month, not 316.13. JJobody is perfect bjrt an
oversight of sore than half 3 million dollars is pretty bad..
Our analyst does not describe how he arrived at the
precise figure of 315,;4Q dollars. 1 have tried to figure it
out by looking at his data on costs of various aspects of the
alternative systems. The closest I aan come £s about 6600 dollars.
To reach the 6600 figure you have to start with the most expensive
on—sits system with high power consumption and complex operation» •
Then you have- to a-cjuire more land at the going- price of 321,000
p-er acre. You will -aia». have to buy 2«5 times as r.uch land for
your second field as stata law requires. And that gets you less
than half way to the alleged cost.
Another cruestion that bothered me was the choice of
interest ratas. The cost of upgrading was always figure^ at
the rate of 3;» on a 20,-year loan. The rate for our. share of
the cost of sewer systems was ?J» on a UO-year loan.
Starting with the same data as the 313, I have cade my
own estimates. I think the problem on-site systems could be put
into tip-top shape for a few hundred thousand dollars, compared
with .",;4-.l million.
EPA RESPONSE
The interest costs on capital items were not overlooked,
and were included in the monthly cost figures presented in
Section 3.2.4 from which total costs were calculated.
The $15,540 figure was based on the monthly cost
(including interest) for an upgraded septic system of $64.75
per month x 12 months/year x 20 years. The upgraded system
costs are those presented in Section 3.2.4 and include absorp-
tion field expansion, added land, and treatment using aeration
or sand filtration with associated operating costs.
Choice of interest rates is based upon rates, reasonably
estimated to be available. The 5%, 40-year FHA loan rate is
available for the financing of the local share of the proposed
project. Since this low rate would not be available for
on-site systems upgrading, a commercial rate estimated at 8%
was used to compare the actual costs for the residents.
Estimated costs for upgrading on-site systems are
discussed in Section 3.2.2 and 3.2.4.
-------
So r.iuch for the cast data .is presented in the 3is.
How vrfaere do we 30 from here?
I would like to see a bor.a fide survey r::ada. Two years
ar;o I tried, to gat such a survey raafle in 3d,"ewood Bay. T wis
turned down.
It. would not be too difficult" to send a Sanitary 2n;;ineer l.'I'A . ion.'i! lime -mil cost of
to every last one of the 375 on-site installations in the Project '' '^"^ "' l''lth "' Ul" :i/!' <"'"'i(l' ''V'-'™'- '•• W'i'TdnU.,1.
Con-, i d(>r in(| .ill i i;l (irm.il inn iifit.hcrtvl ilurini.) Lin; p 1,11111 i nij
Area, He should be aocompanied by a licensed ocerator who , , , • ,. , • , , K -
process, fl'A !».'I irv/cs I.In' rccoimiii'iMli'H plan in Uu' I inal MS i:
would be qu^liried to estimate the cost of eliminating each (.lie l.!>c most rost-i-l tot.l.i vc ,; I l.ccn.il.i vc wit.ii t!ic lc;i:.t nclvcvs.-;
'ixlstin.^ oroblem* 'Dais woi Id ^.Lve vis ti;e cost; data we neod» cnv inMimrnLt I impiK.l. -nnl the m"'.l rriMliic Innq-l.enn [;iMiel 11:..
In the unlifely event that the costs of r2--air are too l" ' h" <^'<>"« o-mrnuni i.y.
::ro.-it, we would still need to stucy t.he c;.:c--rper :•;!ternatives
described by JPA i.; the n.issin.^ dccuiLencso Those docucients
STecifioally warned a.-'ainrt the probl;iQs Inherent in conventiornl
gravity sewer systen.s c'or rocky and hilly tsriMi.i.
finally, 3PA should be on notice that every effort vill
be rr.ade to assure strict conf.Dn~a.ncs wit!; the J.PA Policy as
set fnrth in PH1-; ",o. 77-3, and wi r.h the renuire-.eiv.s of Public
Law 92-JCO.
. IAJ
-------
3ox 90, Route 1
Laiteview,
AR 726^2
August 25. 1978
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Clinton B.. S-jotts
Regional SIS Coordinator
•First International Building
1201 tlm Street
Dallas, TX 75270 ' .. . .
Dear Mr. 3'potts:
•• ' This letter is 'to confirni that a Conference has'^ .
set up with members of the BIS section for 13 September, 1978.
The undersigned will be accompanied by i-ir. James Saston and
Mr. Robert S.Lee. We will be interested in discussing several
aspects of the SIS for the proposed Lalceview, Arkansas Waste-
water Treatment Facility.
We are concerned with the impacts any wastewater
treatment facility will have on future growth patterns in the
area, and the secondary effects on the attractiveness of the
area as a retirement and tourism center.
'We are concerned with the dollar costs of a large gravity
collection system in unfavorable terrain, and about the projec-
tions of future populations to divide the costs. In a retire-
ment situation there are many widows and potential widows and
others of limited means on fixed incomes to be considered.
'We are concerned with alternatives, and whether the
community might not be better served if existing problems were
handled in smaller neighborhood units.
We are concerned about the sources and amount of alleged
pollution and any real or potential effects on public health.
Is there a need and if so does it point to the present proposal
as the optimum solution?
We are concerned -whether possible overdesign (300,000
gallons per day) eight not load costs on the nresent population
for the benefit of yet undeveloped areas.
'We are concerned whether new technology .-.ay have nroduced
viable alternatives that may not have been sufficiently addressed.
It is our understand ing that any information developed
during the 18 September meeting will be considered timely
presented, despite the 7 September date for input set by llrs.
Button at the Lakeview Hearing, and will be incorporated in the
Final Draft Environmental Inpact Statement.
We look forward to t.eeting with your staff and offer our
COL.piete cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
-------
iff.
'-^^tS^'J/CV-i^'-;^'-/ .jC^-. — A-—??— ~^\
'f-^-v) J(s-iL4. Kh,,f_^. fO /v-^
.-v- T
-'-f.&•'!-<•-'•<:•' ^-''{-c-y. .t-i~:s"i-"*•'-"-*f ~vf.-<'-c'~,~J- '
i PA (MM en I y [iiiiil -•! prijjoc I i ' 1 he 1 or:;) I pi-op I o wan!,
it i.sinl aijree t.o pay ',hn i r sh.in*. I he (),-•( j;;t;i w,: l^r IHJ I 1 ul, i on
and septic: sy.U-Mii problems (Ic-cuiiienled :i: ' aKcv i -..-w (.,tiow t.ht.i<-.^
',\"> t.enis h.iv t;i-n't.a i n 1 y not In.1 (MI 1 u'l ! y • ' • •> •• , i 111 .
-------
£
4;
o
X
(.K <^-^.^_i,
"
(?>fA\
/ • •?- S
At
/. 2-5
> • 7 5
f!— t — A_>: — ^>
C $ ^ rt (") Vf ,7 1 (:
5.A.-,-—K U-L /-•tV^X-cV (A.--C vf-i^rii--i.--<_..J.;-«
(.^
•^./U- a--
'•^i
LZ£
^^^
<--ff-'v—•—^-T
..^f^-cT1-
^R
<_x
-^7/1 .
'P if1
-------
tJ.Jb.ST
... - ~ • . / H^X
i-f. cvi.«n(-ry; ~_ s-,.,n.r.. - /Cy ,,G .ca?- 'IV:
Dallas,, -exo, 75270 H ^,C5^ -I
D«r K,. S.ott,: \4 ^ ^* ^
t.i.ov- of -i fletfcr- i-ynt-Kri) ir* -i-hg vJll^f.o'Tf lakevlew:
of -om/Arte^a? io^^al^biia'asFel-^ °the
;'^o»t flsl-iv,;.; quality ,;f ^ Hitl.l'SI:o;jlK
pur.1. f l.c;r'-i o^ of "the pfflup-nt li^ bp'cvi "
PWeiMo.fi So -of -llow For 1-y.y: cnl 'humm
erroro n^d r.vr.-.-n.-jw of -M-ie r:y;;te;.i tine to
Furt)ier:..:cu-oj' ' !.\-; firic •••' clil:u-3-"p :•.:•-. n
?ife"rric1'rivv :ls "xi-rc isly t.)-:.l.e t0 flrh (<-:.0i,t)
pl.oi-it (Gcrurrjtc fi-or." Bu'l'l^SViaMln viMch'iicrr;
3) '^Vnno"3^'1 i''^1'11'10" !..
"unbr"~ r f ''"""^'ly ';xr,;>e
W"«L *> -"T rll"2 fol> s
i or if ? °CV1 V"ry li
ilor fl^rt^- <-:io_.Bar* yenr.
f ^rr-?"^,U!*-'-V of , Saw5
'- f'.i-t i-^o rjPTrelpnRI-n of t-
by
Pystera will
'
EPA RESPONSE
An advantage of the aerated lagoon system is reli-
ability and resistance to shock loadings. The design lagoon
detention time is 48 days and lagoon effluent is followed by
further clarification and filtration to meet very stringent
effluent standards. The chance of drastic failure of the
treatment system is remote.
The alternatives of disinfection with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5. It is
emphasized that if chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
will be required to protect the trout. Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated. Ozonation is
a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
Implementation of either process will protect the important
trout fishery. Because of new developments in these areas,
final selection of the process will not be determined until
detailed Step 2 planning and design. In cithor case, design
and operation will achieve strict conformant- to both State
and Federal water quality standards.
As discussed in Section 3.3, the estimated capital
costs savings by connecting to the Bull Shoals system would be
about $50,000. This does not consider the delay and adminis-
trative costs for the town of Bull Shoals whose system is near
construction. Serious reservations have also been expressed
by the Arkansas Department of Public Health concerning crossing
the White River with a raw sewage line.
As pointed out in the EIS, the system is designed to
serve an initial population equivalent of more than 1,350,
including Edgewood Bay, Leisure Hills, Bull Shoals State Park,
-------
EPA RESPONSE
-i-.,-i"r? over l6o vncf.™* T.O+SJ
5_) _I object F*-rp">iou?lj' J-oi.1£';i"n r^r
^-'-e'l'ss..-! ^ s^-^isr 5-"T:*p^ -'h:'.c'-" o '•'••-'
.li.'rtif;^"^ fro" * he" r '•-'- -"'''•> -iir>+- of"bo?.3
(sy: .^•'•'.•"g.'.poll'Jti.y c?-T"ct ts "rS^nbll
^ o o*1 o"i cfi. Ojf ooT^inZ^''"I ^^ c' e1^ ri ty ~T
the Lakeview Recreation Area, and an allowance for seasonal
tourist use. EPA believes that the most practical and cost-
effective solution to the problem for the entire community is
the proposed project as described in the Final EIS.
The 1978 special census data was not available for
inclusion for the Draft EIS, however, it has been incorporated
in the Final EIS in Section 5.4.la. It is concluded that the
Draft EIS population projection for Lakeview is still reasonable.
Results of investigations of pollution, public
health and development density are discussed in Section 2.1,
2.2, and 2.3.
-------
August 25, 1978
Richard A. Dean
305 N. Washington Ave
Fayetteville, Arkansas
72701
Clinton B. Spotts
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas
75270
Dear Sin
This letter is in response to the town meeting in Lakeview,
Arkansas, on August 21, presided over by EPA officials to review
the recent EIS for the proposed sevage treatment system. My wife
and I are the owners of the property in the vicinity of Lakeview,
where the proposed sewage treatment plant is to be located. Je
do not favor the precise location of the plant as presented in
the studies prepared by Engineering Services. There has been no
official recognition of a critical incompatibility of land use in
the immediate area.
When the offer and acceptance for the property were made in
November, 1977, I did not know about the proposed sewage treatment
system. The land had been on the market for over a year, to sell
at a price obviously intended for a more intensive use than as
agricultural land. We purchased the property for the purpose of
developing the 722-acre tract into a residential community. It
should have come to the attention of Engineering Services that this
land would not remain in agricultural use, and that any treatment
system selected would need to be compatible with the adjacent land's
probable course of development. The present selection of the treat-
ment, plant itself—not just its location—simply does not belong in
a;large residential area, but rather on open agricultural land ranoved
from housing or commercial development.
The precise location has already been altered by Engineering
Services, when it was learned that sites of significant archeological
interest had been discovered on the property. Concerning these sites,
we have proposed that excavations be undertaken between now and the
time construction begins on the new treatment plant, whether or not
EPA RESPONSE
A discussion of the effects of the proposed new real
estate development in relation to the wastewater system has
been added as Section 5.4.3.2d.
-------
page two
the plant's location is affected. We are interested in preserving
the archeological remains from privately funded development, which
would not be hindered by the new legislation protecting national
historic and archelogical sites. With the help of some private
funds, Jsuch excavation work" would most likely be performed by a
college or university archeological team, in accordance with mini-
mum standards set by the Arkansas Archeological Survey or any other
public agency.
Also, we share the concern of those in the Lakeview-Mountain
Home area about the potential pollution of the White River. Every
step should be taken to minimize both chemical and thermal pollution
resulting from waste disposal, to which the water life, notably the
trout population, would be sensitive. We have wondered why no
studies were undertaken to determine the feasibility of methane
conversion, as a potential" primary or secondary power source for
the plant, as well as the recycling of waste material into organic
fertilizer. There have been a few notable experiments in the U.S. in
recent yearsiihvolvihg aetnane and/or fertilizer production in the
solid waste disposal cycle, as part of a national effort to reduce
unnecessary energy consumption, as well as high levels of pollution
into our lakes and streams. Since the White River has. a sensitive
ecology, and since it is a great natural resource, here is a substan-
tial opportunity for the EPA to support a less conservative approach
based on radical new technologies, where the recycling of energy
from solid wastes would not only benefit the local area, but also
other ecologically sensitive areas where similar projects are slated
for the future. A feasibility study may well prove a recycling
system to be economically viable in the long term—not just as a
more responsible means to achieving a balanced ecology.
Sincerely,
S?~*-^
Richard A. Dean
EPA RESPONSE
EPA encourages and supports proper preservation of
the archeological remains from private development, but has no
jurisdiction in this matter. Coordination with the Arkansas
Archeological Survey is suggested.
EPA agrees and steps have been taken to minimize any
adverse impacts to the White River.
Methane gas recovery is an established process at
many large wastewater treatment plants. Analyses of methane
gas recovery from trickling filter sludge at Lakeview indicates
that the amount of excess gas recovered would be small (about
270,000 BTU/day or the equivalent of less than 2 HP). An
anaerobic digestion system required to produce the gas would
cost approximately $40,000 and much of the gas produced would
be required for heating the digester. Proper digestion and
gas production is a sensitive operational process so operating
Costs would also increase. It is concluded -that methane gas
recovery is not cost-effective because of the small amount of
gas produced, added capital expense, added operational costs,
and operational difficulties.
Fertilizer recovery is also of secondary significance
and doubtful feasibility at Lakeview. The small quantity of
waste, low nutrient content of domestic wastewater sludges,
added processing costs, and lack of known demand or likely
areas of application would be major disadvantages. Methane or
fertilizer recovery from waste sludge would not have any
effect on improving effluent quality, but are related to
resource utilization. Although EPA endorses the general
concept of waste resource utilization, such systems do not
appear justified in regard to the Lakeview project.
-------
August 26, 1978
Mr. John C. White, Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. White;
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Lakeview, Arkansas WasteWater Treatment Facilities . . . Grant
#0-05-0441-01-0.
I would also like to bring forth the statements I made in my letter to Mr.
Clinton B. Spotts of June 18, 1977. Of which I requested a reply, but have not
as of this date received such ... at that time I stated, quote "As a member of the
Arkansas Parks & Tourism Commission, I feel that I should inform you that we
(Department of Parks & Tourism) now have our own treatment plant and system, which
has been in operation for over one year. This is not to say we would not use the
proposed system, however, we have not made plans to do such either", end of quote.
Please note that similar comments were made by Richard Bavies, Director Arkansas
State Parks of January 25, 1977, which is part of your draft.
I also stated in the same letter . . . quote "In reference to the same line . .
the proposed line would cut through our playground area, aircraft hangers, and tie
down area, etc., for our resort operation. In addition,through land that we are now
developing in our resort facility. In addition to this, we are now working on our
own system that is similar to the Bull Shoals Park System to handle the sewage, etc.
for our resort ..." end of quote. I bring these comments up again, because of
the quotes on page vi, item D.
•itnn\ Whiti- liit'.-r Kf\nrt/fjii.:i'i'ii-if. Aii-,ui\.n, 7.'i, i?,''r<-l,-t,hon,- '•<)!- t >M,YA? // .,,/> ,„ r • t • /' t 1
-------
August 26, 1978
PAGE 2
In reference to Exhibit 5, the chart shows Gaston's Resort as a problem.
However, I would like to make you aware, that we are not aware of any problems.
As a matter of record the Baxter County Sanitarian has reviewed our system, and
stated we had no problems. In 1977 I requested his opinion as if we should con-
tinue use of our present systems or continue our plans for a treatment system.
His feelings were that our present system was excellent and we needed no change.
The reason being the large track of land we have for our system-and the soil in
our area. Thus I would like to request your source of information in reference
to our facilities on Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 12 shows the proposed line running south of the Gaston Road, through
our playground area, tie down area and land we are using in our facilities. My
question is once again why . . . why not follow the roadway? Thus saving the legal
and right-of-way cost that would come about.
In addition I have very strong feelings that the discharge from the proposed
plant should not be placed directly into White River. Not only because of the prob-
lems that could come about . . . however equally important the impact such would have
on the tourism industry ... if nothing else this is very poor public relations.
Since the Bull Shoals State Park system, and that of the City of Bull Shoals will
be or are doing such, perhaps the Bull Shoals Lake would be better use.
Once again, I would .like to state as I did in 1977, I do not mean the above
as a negative comment towards a system. Our resort facilities is worth approximately
three million dollars, we employ 69 people, and do an annual business of 1.5 million
EPA RESPONSE
This correction has been made to Exhibits 5 and 6.
The alignment of the sewer in the Gaston Road area
will be altered to avoid the playground and aircraft hangar
and tie down areas.
Effects of the White River and Bull Shoals Lake
discharge alternatives are discusssed in Sections 3.4d, 5.2.4,
and 5.3.5. Discharge to Bull Shoals Lake was not selected
because of the need for expensive nutrient removal treatment,
proximity to the heavily used Lakeview Recreation Area and
nearby residential areas, discharge to high quality contact
recreation waters, and disadvantages in serving areas below
the dam.
Caston's White River Remrt/Lakevi,™, Arkaruti 71642/Telcphono 501-4)1-5202
It costs no more to go first class.
-------
August 26, 1978
PAGE 3
dollars. Thus I am aware that we of the area need a system, to maintain our growth
and area, However, I sincerely feel that more study is needed to assure that we
obtain the right system . . . and clear the errors that the proposed system now
has.
The report as many have pointed out, is in error. I sincerely request your
reply, and in addition I assure you that I will be of whatever help and support
I can be. Thank you, I await your early reply . . .
Sincerely,
GASTON'S WHITE RIVER RESORT
Jim Gaston
JAG/ckr
Enc:
-------
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
MRS. H. K. 1
KOUTC one, BOX 235
LAKeL»ieO>, A.RKANSXS 72642
-------
EPA RESPONSE
The alternatives of disinfection with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5. II is
emphasized that, if chlorine is used, dcch lorincit ion of effluent
will be required to protect trout. Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated. Ozonation is
a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
Implementation of either process will protect the important
trout fishery. Because of new developments in these areas,
final selection of the process will not be determined until
detailed Step 2 planning and design. In either case, design
and operation will achieve strict conformance to both State
and Federal water quality standards.
-------
J#^
-------
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U.S. E.J^.A.
1201 film St.
Dallas, Texas 75270
E. 1, Box 175
Lakeview, Arkansas 72642
August 28, 1978
Re: Proposed Lakeview Area Sewer Project
Dear Mr. Spotts:
With regard to the above mentioned sewer project, 1 would
like to express my disapproval. I, along with my wife and
five chidren, have been a resident of this area for approx-
mately five years. During this time we have been using a
septic system which functions adaquately.
Many people move to this area for its rustic, natural setting.
I feel the above mentioned project would pave the way for
future growth and have a negative impact on the natural
environment .
Hopefully, there can be some residential areas left unspoiled
by the progress of mankind.
Sincerely
• '. of the area.
-------
QND Reolty
NW Corner of Yellville Square
Larry Evans
P. 0. Box 585
Yellville, Arkansas 72687
Bus. Phone 501-449-4238
August 28, 1978
•ft
Mr. Clinton B. Spott.s
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
As I understand, the sewer treatment plant for
Lakeview, Arkansas, is going to be located in the
bottomland of the Partees' homestead. I sold this
land to Mr. Richard Dean for $1,280,000.00.
This development will be a 12 to 15 million
dollar development upon its completion and if the sewer
plant is permitted to be located at its present proposed
location it would be very damaging to the resale of the
lots.
I wish your department would consider moving the
sewer treatment plant to the other side of Bruce Creek
because the growth of Lakeview depends upon the develop-
ment of this land. Lakeview can't grow in any other
direction because of government land and Bull Shoals Lake.
If the treatment plant is permitted to be located as
it is proposed, the harm to Lakeview and to this develop-
ment would be in the millions of dollars.
Sincerely,
EVANS REALTY
Larry Evans
Enclosure
Topo Map
cc: Mr. Richard' Dean
305 N. Washington Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
EPA RESPONSE
A discussion of the effects of the proposed new
development in regard to the wastewater system has been added
as Section 5.4.3.2d.
Disadvantages of the site across Bruce Creek are the
added costs of an expensive structure to provide all-weather
access, and lack of adequate suitable area for the proposed
treatment plant. EPA does not believe that Lakeview or EPA
should bear added costs of a site across Bruce Creek to suit the
newly proposed private development. Lakeview has substantial
growth potential in existing incorporated areas as well as the
potential for annexation of areas to the northeast; therefore,
growth does not necessarily depend on development of the
unincorporated area south of Lakeview toward the White River.
LE/ad
-------
WILLIAM H. GUPPY
POWER PLANT CONSULTANT
August 28, 1978
Mr. Clinton E. Spotts
Enviornmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts»
At the public hearing for the proposed Lakeview, Arkansas
sewage treatment plant on August 21, 1978, I did not have
an opportunity to present questions, so I am submitting
them to you as instructed by Ms. Diana Dutton.
See attached sheet.
Sincerely yours,
cc The Baxter Bulletin
Mountain Home, Arkansas 72653
Box 16C, Star Route 2
Norfork. Arkansas 72658
Phone (501) 499-7300
-------
WILLIAM H. GUPPY
POWER PLANT CONSULTANT
Lakeview Sewage Disposal Plant
Questions for Open Hearing August 21, 1978
1. Is chlorination and dechlorination the best way to treat sewage
as far as effects on the environment are concerned?
2. What happens if the dechlorination system fails or there is an
overdose of chlorine?
3. Will the type of Chlorine planned provide a hazard to the
community? ;
4. The Environmental Impact Statement projects 3.000 people in
•1995. Does this include the transients?
5. What if the number is actually 6,000 on the week of July ^ or
at any other time?
6. The Engineering study received 9/23/77 said dechlorination
would not be necessary. Why was the change made? How much
will it affect the cost?
ional Engineer
shers
Box 16C, Star Route 2
Norfork, Arkansas 72658
Phone {501) 499-W98-
EPA RESPONSE
The alternatives of disinfecting with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5. It is
emphasized that, if chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
will be required to protect trout. Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated. Ozonation is
a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and furttier
developments in the design, economics, application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
Implementation of either process will protect the important
trout fishery. Because of new developments in these areas,
final selection of the process will not be determined until
detailed Step 2 planning and design. In either case, design
and operation will achieve strict conformance to both State
and Federal water quality standards.
The equipment used for dechlorination is proven and
similar to that used for chlorination. Proper control and
operation will be necessary. If dechlorination fails or there
is an overdose of chlorine, detrimental effects on the trout
fishery could result. Extreme adverse effects are not likely
because of the large dilution factor even during low flow
conditions.
Gaseous chlorine is extensively used in water and
wastewater treatment and must be carefully handled. Maximum
chlorine use will be about 30 Ib/day so that small (150 Ib)
chlorine cylinders should be adequate. With proper safety
precautions in design and operation, there will be minimal
hazard to operators or other persons nearby.
Allowance for transient population is included in
the 100 -gal/capita/day wastewater flow design estimate. Also,
an advantage of the aerated lagoon system is resistance to
shock loadings such as those of a peak summer weekend.
Dechlorination was required by the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology in a letter of December 9,
1976 (see Appendix A) after their review of the Facility Plan
and Environmental Assessment. The change was made because of
the high quality of the White River and the trout fishery.
Dechlorination equipment is similar to chlorination equipment
and a dechlorination system is estimated to cost about $15,000.
-------
/&
*4z w
EPA RESPONSE
It is recognized that the monthly charge will cause
financial difficulty for some individuals and families as
discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c. However, there would also be
substantial economic as well as environmental costs associated
with continued use of septic tank systems as discussed in
Section 3.2. Without the project, increased septic tank
system problems, water quality degradation, and public health
problems can be expected.
-------
--J^
EPA RESPONSE
State regulations require that "All premises shall
be connected to a sanitary sewer when within 300 feet and
available to said premises so that a connection can be made
without crossing another person's property..."
-------
ij s&JZ&fa- Mfl^.
/ '
s._. .. , ' s
J...
EPA RESPONSE
Estimated project costs and the monthly charge to
residents are presented in Section 4.5. It is recognized that
the monthly charge would cause financial difficulties for some
individuals and families as discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c;
however, there would also be substantial economic as well as
environmental costs associated with continued use of septic
tank systems as discussed in Section 3.2.
-------
W. G. Kuschel
Lalccview, Arkansas 72642
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
(/
9.S /I1? 2
/
-------
Lakeview, Arkansas
August 28, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional Cordinator
First International Building
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas ?52?0
Dear Mr. Spottsi
On August 21, 1978 a meeting was held in the Community Building
Lakeview, Arkansas to review and discuss the Impact Statements of the
EPA relative to the proposed waste water disposal system for this area.
As a resident of Edgewood Bay, which may be included in the plan, I
attended the meeting.
As a result of the information presented at that time along with what
was learned by reading the Impact Statement, certain questions arise
with respect to the need, cost, feasibility, and even desirability
of a sewer system for this area. Let me consider each of these items
seperately.
HEED
Admittedly some of the septic systems in our area, have caused trouble
but there is reason to believe that in many instances the difficulty
can be traced to either improper installation initially or to poor or
inadequate maintenance over the years. We have lived in our home about
seven and one-half years and have experienced no trouble whatsoever
with our septic tank. I know too that none of my four immediate neighbors
has had any difficulty. As a matter of fact the Impact Statement reports
moderate difficulty with residential installations and serious problems
with commercial systems. This is understandable. Inadequate laterals
and absorption fields combined with the practice of black topping.
over the drainage fields contribute to the problems experienced by
some of the motels, restaurants and other commercial establishments
in this area.
COST
The intial cost of the sewer system is subject to question. The actual
cost to each user is certainly optimistically low. The Impact Statement
reports that some 1300 .people would use the proposed sewer system.
This is more fictitious than real. The figures Includes visitors to
Bull Shoals State Park and the Lakeview Recreation Area. It is a matter
of public record that the agencies of these facilities have made no
commitment to join the sewer system. There are other questionable
figures included in the total indicated.
EPA RESPONSE
EPA recognizes there are septic tank systems operating
satisfactorily without effluent surfacing, however,
this does not alter the fact that a significant number of
systems have failed and ground water degradation is evident,
comprising health and pollution problems. It is likely that
many septic tank systems which have previously operated
satisfactorily will fail in the future. EPA believes that the
most practical and cost-effective solution to the problem for
the entire community is the proposed project as described in
the Final EIS.
Revised population projections are discussed in
Section 5.4.1.a. Neither the Corps of Engineers or Bull
Shoals State Park have been ruled out as possible users of the
proposed system, therefore, it is appropriate to include them
at this stage. If they do not participate, the monthly user
cost for residents in Lakeview will be higher as discussed in
Section 3.4.e.
-------
FEASIBILITY
(Page 2)
The sewer system proposed for Edgewood Bay is of the gravity type.
The terrain of this area is such that to construct such a system would
be little less than a monumental engineering task. The amount of blasting
of rock that would be required and the dept'of the trenches to be dug
would present serious problems to say nothing of the impact that it
would have on the environment.
DESIRABILITY
Much of the sewer lines would be laid in solid rock trenches with
little or no ground cover to filter sewer line leakage. Since this
line would run along the Governament strip and close to Bull Shoals Lake
there is good reason to believe that contamination of the lake might
be expected.
On August 25, 1978 my wife and I drove to Cotter, Arkansas ( about
18 miles from Lakeview ) and had lunch at the White Sands restaurant.
Knowing that Cotter was in the process of completing its sewer system
we made inquiry as to what the residents of the area thought of it.
We had occasion to talk to or be involved in conversation with eight
different people six of whom were residents of the area and two of
whom were workmen on the sewer project. The six people that had comments
to make said in effect that the sewer system was a disaster. Their
advice was to avoid sewers if at ail possible. The two workmen when
asked how the project was progressing said that the treatment plant
had again been tested but that it still remained inoperable.
At this time I would like to raise the question as to why alternatives
to a sewer system might not be considered. For example much of the area to
be served by the proposed waste water disposal system is undeveloped
or at least is comprised of vacant lots. Would it not be advisable
to increase the lot sizes per household ? This would not necessarily
be a loss to the land developers in that the cost of the lot would
be based upon its size. It would mean'xeffect fewer homes per square
mile which might even be preferable for more reasons than one.
In any event after all is said and done I find that I have some grave
misgivings about the efficacy of a sewer system as proposed for the
Lakeview area. Sewers are excellent if their installation does not
create insurmountable problems of construction, cost, operation and
maintenance. Are sewers the only answer to waste disposal in this area ?
Possibly but let's be intelligent enough to way the pros and the cons
before saying that there is no other way to go.
For the record just a little about my background. I was a registered
professional engineer in the State of Illinois, prior to my retirement
in 1971. My background is in Chemistry. Undergraduate work was done
at Lewis Institute ( now part of Illinois Institute of Technology ) and
my graduate work in Chemistry was done at the University of Chicago.
Sincerely,
Frank P. Mueller
EPA RESPONSE
A substantial allowance for costs associated with
blasting is included in revised project cost estimates. Blasting will
generally be required in areas on steeper slopes.
As discussed in Section 5.2.5 and in response to
A. W. Ueitkarop's comnents on page 109, little exfiltration should
occur.
"s The Cotter-Gassvilie system is nearing start-up and
has not experienced any major problems during construction.
Alternatives for upgraded septic tank systems including
expanded lots are discussed in Section 3.2.
EPA believes that the proposed project is the most
reliable and cost-effective solution to the problem for the
Lakeview community, and will also result in the least adverse
environmental impacts over the long term.
-------
UAJ% o-A ^f£<~
EPA RESPONSE
Noting that some systems have not been installed
properly does not alleviate the problem. Even properly installed
and operated systems will contribute to water quality degradation
i.e., nitrate, chloride) and many can be expected to experience
absorption field failure in the future. EPA believes that the
most practical and cost-effective solution to the problem for the
entire community is the proposed project as described in the Final
EIS.
-------
,^ ;^
tfV '
-------
-------
August 29, 1978
P.O. 3ox 93
Lakeview, Arkansas 72642
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Clinton B.Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Sim Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
lie: Lakeview, Arkansas .Waste Disposal Proposal
Dear Sir:
Progress in the commercial portions of Lakeview,Arkansas
will not be able to operate or any new operations can be
started unless the waste disposal, now under study, can be
installed in Lakeview. Large resorts and some other operations
are in dire stress for waste disposal through their septic
tanks now.
Also, in the subdivision where I live, iidgewood 3ay, the
Arkansas Department of Health advised us to boil our water
a couple of years ago until we added ohlorinators to our
community wells. This shows that we have saturation froc
septic tanks already. As more hones are built it is going
to ;;et worse.
Therefore, I aa in full favor of the installation of a-waste
disposal unit in the Lakeview, Arkansas area.
Copy: City of Lakeview, Mayors Office
-------
j^-^w''^-^^r7
0 , si/^-i-'S .Tri*'-- <•' £<. '
Oii.'-Oi.-J -4 >•£,• ftS."/ •••<.'&*& ' -*•' -'•••••>'( !/
^,^,f *- ^ -^ ^-<' "^;.^;,.
/ , „••;,. ^.-^•"•«t4
I^-'i
,^~'-<- S^* '
?/ ^:y-A- '-'-^ <-"~~° -A"'
r^ „ ,.,'••*
J
^" O.-W
LXsl*?~iL-t
^A^-^'' -' /
-/ x/ ^ /.^-
EPA RESPONSE
EPA recognizes there are septic tank systems operating
satisfactorily without effluent surfacing; however, this does
not alter the fact that a significant number of systems have
failed and ground water degradation is evident, comprising
health and pollution problems. It is likely that many septic
tank systems that have previously operated satisfactorily will
fail in the future. EPA believes that the most practical and
cost-effective solution to the problem for the entire community
is the proposed project as described in the Final EIS.
Estimated project costs and the monthly charge to
residents are presented in Section 4.5. It is recognized that
the monthly charge would cause financial difficulties for some
individuals and families as discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c;
however, there would also be substantial economic as well as
environmental costs associated with continued use of septic
tank systems as discussed in Section 3.2.
-------
CERTIFIED MAIL — Return Receipt Requested
MARVIN L. COLE
ARKANSAS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER #2498
ARKANSAS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR #558
MARVIN L COLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ASSOCIATES:
LYNN NELSON
R. SCOTT JACKSON, JR.
OFFICE: HIGHWAY 14 NORTH
YELLVU.LE, ARKANSAS 72687
Box 634
YELLVILLE, ARKANSAS 72687
September 1, 1978
PHONE 501-449-6919
NIGHT: 50-1-449-6541
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The services of this firm have been retained by Mr, Richard Dean
for the development of 722.671 acres of land south of Lakeview, Arkansas.
The proposed treatment plant for the Lakeview project (Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Grant No. C-05-0443.-01-0) is to be located on this
property.
Before preparing the final -environmental impact statement, it is
respectfully requested that the following items be considered and included
in the report:
a) The land usage south of Lakeview and specifically in the vicinity
of the proposed plant has changed from agricultural to residential.
b) The area immediately adjacent to the proposed plant will be sub-
divided' and developed as residential area. Appearance and nuisance
factors (noise and odor) must now be considered^ The availability of
river frontage property is limited and is selling at a premium.
c) Total development will consist of approximately 1200 family units
within five years, with 400 of these units being built on the river
by the time the wastewater treatment facilities are complete. This
will change, the usage and projected revenue figures for the project.
d) Mr. Dean is an heir to Dean's Poods, Inc., and has the financial
capability to develop the area as planned.
d) This is almost the only area toward which Lakeview can expand when
considering the growth boundary already established by government
property.
EPA RESPONSE
A discussion of the effects of the proposed new
development in relation to the wastewater system has been
added as Section 5.4.3.2.d.
Lakeview has substantial growth potential in existing
incorporated areas as well as the potential for annexation of
areas to the northeast; therefore, growth does not necessarily
depend on development of the unincorporated area south of
Lakeview toward the White River.
-------
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Page 2
September 1, 1978
EPA RESPONSE
f) In view of the recent West Plains, Missouri, experience, the
possibility of polluting white River with a lagoon-type system
should be considered.
It is recommended that a trickling-filter plant followed by disinfection
and sand filtration be used in lieu of an aerated lagoon (Page 26 of the
Draft E.I.S.).
It is assumed that the engineering feasibility study considered
methane conversion and recycling process as part of the plant features.
With the additional load in the very near future, it is suggested that
this process be reconsidered.
A copy of the boundary survey performed for Mr. Dean is attached for
your reference. Lot layouts and design schematics of the proposed homes
are available for review if desired.
Respectfully,
MARVIN L. COLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Mr. Richard Dean
305 N. Washington
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Unlike the area associated with the lagoon failure
at West Plains, Missouri, the proposed Lakeview plant site has
favorable geological characteristics with regard to lagoon
construction and integrity. The lagoons will also be lined to
prevent leakage.
Disadvantages of a trickling filter system are less
effective BOD removal and higher capital cost. Odors and
(filter) flies are also greater problems with trickling
filters. The trickling filter system would have the advantage
of using less land than aerated lagoons. Trickling filters
and aerated lagoons are both resistant to shock loadings and
relatively simple to operate. On balance, EPA does not believe
that changing to a trickling filter system at Lakeview is
justified.
As discussed in response to Mr. Dean's comments on
page 123, methane or fertilizer recovery do not appear justified.
-------
00: r
~^W*^°
.'• '%
'
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
x
-------
-------
j^ USH^^O^vf°~ /" ^7
^L, ^^^c^y^yi^^ + <3<~~j6«^
^6^>^% — ^^ ^^_^
^^2.*^^
^ss^fi^>~y //*~^ s ,, //
j. A^^ ^— ^f^ */a^rt3$
^CT^y ^— ^ ^ ^-^f-
££%&< ^TT -*^?%£L
X-^^ ^r/.TTw^
EPA RESPONSE
The Cotter-Gassville project is near start-up and
has not experienced major construction problems. The alternatives
of disinfection with ozone or chlorine are discussed in Sections
3.4c and 5.3.5. It is emphasized that if chlorine is used,
dechlorination of effluent will be required to protect the
trout. Effective and economical means for dechlorination are
available, although operations and reliability are being
further evaluated. Ozonation is a promising alternative to
chlorine disinfection and further developments in the design,
economics, application, and operation of ozonation systems are
currently in progress. Implementation of either process will
protect the important trout fishery. Because of new developments
in these areas, final selection of the process will not be
determined until detailed Step 2 planning and design. In
either case, design and operation will achieve strict conformance
to both State and Federal water quality standards.
EPA concurs and does not want to waste taxpayers'
money.
-------
Lakeview, Ark. /£
Sept. 5, 1978 /V;
Mr. Clinton B- Spotts
U. S. Jiuv. Protection Agcy
1201 jilm St.,
Dallas, Tex. 75270
Dear Sir:
.'•/HO
I am a resident of Kdgewood Bay Subdivision in Lakeview,
Ark. and I am writing in regard to the proposed sewer system for
this area.
I am deeply concerned about the effect this sewer system
will have on this area, mainly the lake and the White River. According
to the proposed plan, the sewerage from ether subdivisions to the east
of us here will be routed right around the edge of our lake, about at
the high water line. My concern is seepage from this line. Couldn't
the main line be routed along the highway and only the ones who act-
ually live on the government strip have u line along the roads there to
serve them? I understand that there is always seepage from these lines
due to the way they are always put in, like field tile and if we should
have another high water year like we had two or three years ago the seepage
could easily find its way into the lake, couldn't it? This lake makes
the area here and if something should pollute it there just wouldn't be
anything valuable left for this area. The same can be said for the White
River. It seems to me that simply because a few people have had problems
with their systems, due largely to wrong installation or usage, why risk
everything for everyone else by having sewers running so close to the
lake? If they really are necessary, which I seriously doubt, can't they
be put in a safer place?
Another source of concern is the cost of the whole -thing.
As you know there are many retirees living in this area of Lakeview and
many widows who have a hard enough time making ends meat as it is. When
the town council members give us to understand this will only amount
to something like ten dollars a month, I think they are deliberately
trying to fool the people. Maybe city people can believe it butt hose of
us who have lived through a similar experience in small towns know how
much more you have to pay when they even add onto an existing sewer
system. Most of us feel that we have already paid for a system when we
purchased our homes in the first place, in my case 7 years ago this month.
Why should we called upon to pay for another system. Why not wait
until the area has «± least a thousand people or more before talking
sewers? Right now the only people to really benefit are the real estate
operators and the business people — the rest of us lose. My husband and
I have loved this area ever since we moved down here from an Illinois
town where we both were born and lived most of our lives and now since
he is gone from me I would like to stay here, providing I can afford to,
but it is difficult enough as it is right now as my incoae is. just
half of what it was while he was living. But I love it here and do
enjoy t.*is beautiful luke where I swim every day.
Yours very truly,
EPA RESPONSE
As discussed in Section 5.2.5 and in the response to
A. W. Weitkamp's comments on page 109, little exfiltration should
occur.
Estimated project costs and the monthly charge to
residents are presented in Section 4.5. It is recognized that
the monthly charge would cause financial difficulties for some
individuals and families as discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c;
however, there would also be substantial economic as well as
environmental costs associated with continued use of septic
tank systems as discussed in Section 3.2.
fit/ 1, Box 144
Lakeview, Ark. 72642
-"^ a'-c;--f
-------
Area Code 501-431-5343
RICHARD B. MORRIS
Bay Ridge Rd.
Edgewood Bay
lakeview, Ar. 72642
September 5, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas 75270
Technical
Photography
Dear Sir:
Re: Proposed Lakeview, Ark.
Sewer System
At the recent hearing on the Proposed
Lakeview, Ark. Sewer System, Mr. Emerson Stephens
made certain statements regarding the writer1s
septic system.
I wish to emphasize that Mr. Stephens evidently
does not know the difference between routine
maintenanne and malfunction. He never personally
investigated w&at was being done on my property
and he based his remarks entirely on hearsay.
My system was, and is, working perfectly; but
after 10 years operation, 1 was having the tank
pumped out, some of the lateral ditches made wider
and the clay tite replaced with perforated plastic
pipe in accordance with updated specifications
to insure that it continues to operate satisfactory
under an anticipated increased photographic pro-
cessing load.
EPA RESPONSE
This information is noted and appreciated.
Very truly yours,
-------
THE
COMPANY
1409 Post Oak Road
MOUNTAIN HOME, ARK. 72653
DEPCtJOAOil FOR OVER 30 WARS
ADVERTISING SPECIALTIES
CALENDARS • BUSINESS GIFTS • SALES AWARDS
DECALS » SIGNS • COMMERCIAL FLOOR MATS
Sept. 5, 1978
UHITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Clinton B. Spotts
1201 Elm Street
DALLAS, TEXAS 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
It is imparative that your agency take action
in the interests of environment and the effects on wild-
life and residents of the area.
On the information available it, is my
personal request that ozone be used instead of chlorine.
Further, if effluent would be directed to
Bull Shoals Lake it would be highly desirable from the
standpoint of temperature and dilution. Except for
speed boating and skiing the lake is not used for any
purpose that the river is not used for.
All precaution should be taken to prevent
flood polution and unintentional [or intentional]
mismanagement .
1409 Post Oak Rd.
MOUNTAIN HOME, ARK. 72653
EPA RESPONSE
The alternatives of disinfecting with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5. It is
emphasized that, if chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
will be required to protect trout. Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated. Ozonation is a
promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and operation
of ozonation systems are currently in progress. Implementation
of either process will protect the important trout fishery.
Because of new developments in these areas, final selection
of the process will not be determined until detailed Step 2
planning and design. In either case, design and operation
will achieve strict conformance to both State and Federal
water quality standards.
Effects of the White River and Bull Shoals Lake
discharge alternatives are discussed in Sections 3.4d and
5.2.4. Discharge to Bull Shoals Lake was not selected because
of the need for expensive nutrient removal treatment, proximity
to the heavily used Lakeview Recreation Area and nearby resi-
dential areas, discharge to high quality contact recreation
waters, and disadvantages in serving areas below the dam.
The proposed project is designed to be reliable as
discussed in Section 5.2.5.
On-site system alternatives are thoroughly discussed
in Section 3.2.
-------
CLAUDE W. SHONKWILER
MAYOR
EARL G. WHIPPLE
RECORDER
ALDERMEN
LOIS HARDY
MELVIN A. LECHTENBERGER
WILLIAM G. KUSCHEL
ORRIN J. CHICK, SR.
JAMES J. ZlTNIK
TOWN OF LAKEVIEW
POST OFFICE Box ISO
LAKEVIEW, BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS
72642
September 5,
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, T-exas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts,
The public meeting held in Lakeview, Arkansas, August 21,
1978 afforded the people of the Lakeview Area an opportunity to
speak for or against the Environmental Impact Statement as it re-
lates to the waste water treatment program for this Area.
One of the speakers who spoke against the BIS and the pro-
posed waste water treatment program was Mr. Robert E. Lee who made
a statement that "there are 550 lots in Lakeview." This statement
is not true and I should like to present the following facts taken
from pla£s officially registered in the off ice of the Baxter County
Clerk, Mr. Arnold Knight.
There is a total of fourteen plats including the Lakeview
plat plus the Leisure Hills area information as furnished by the
Association and certified to by two officers of the Association.
Attached to the copies of the plats is an official map of
the incorporated area of Lakeview showing the locations of the
various subdivisions. I hope this information will assist you as
you study the locations of the various subdivisions comprising tho
proposed treatment area.
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Subdivisions
Crestwood
Wonderland Estates
Forest Shores
Devonshire Lakes
Glen Cove
Hudson
Edgewood Bay
Trimble Plats
Lakeview
Penrod
Lakeview Annex
Leisure Hills
No. of lots
63
99
158
201
6
2l».6
27
96
11
69
(including 5l apts. and
18 lots with 9 homes)
Total lots
-------
TOWN OF LAKEVIEW
. „ MCLVIN A. l-CCHTCNBCnOCR
POST OFFICE BOX 150 WILLIAM a. KUSCHCI-
LAKEVIEW, BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS
72642
Spotts—EPA Page 2
There are 795 lots in Lakeview Town--not 550 as Mr. Lee
reported. These are detailed as follows:
Lots In Lakevlew Town
Subdivision No. of lota
Glen Cove 201
Devonshire Lakes 158
Penrod 131).
Lakeview 96
Lakeview Annex 32
Forest Shores 81).
Crestwood 63
Trimble Flats 27
Total lots 795
I hope these plats and this Information will assist you
In your deliberations relating the Lakeview1s need for a waste
water treatment program.
Mayor
-------
ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
max hall, p.a., r.l.s.,
president
jorry martin, p.e.,
vice-president
214 west emma
springdale, arkansas 72764
telephone 501-751-8733
Nbverttoer 17, 1978
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
senior vice-president
gary I. king,
secretary-treasurer
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Roger N. Jungclaus, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates,
800 ftorth 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, M3 63101
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
Inc.
letter is in response to your letter dated October 16, 1978, addressed to Mr.
Max "all offthis firm concerning the Lakeview, Arkansas Wastewater Treatment
Facilites. I will answer your questions in the sane order and using tfie aaoe num-
bering system as* in your letter:
1. The revised oast estimates are attached hereto. Please note that via nave
inmilBHeafr tte eat inntyd quantity of rock. excavation to what MB cCTnrtrlpr
should be the mmrtatqji for this project. In preparing this resriaaiS oast
estiMtte, MB have resiewed the cost of ttaa Bull Shoals syst» aaft otter
reoaatly bid systsiB in Northern Adcansas.
2.. We £tel Tihe the iyj»r p«iMt^ for allowable infiltration of 100 cpVinch
of p^e d»BBBi£er/teiJ« is reasonable and a 5Dod specification fbr.tt»B Lake-
vie«r Sewer %stem. Ml sewer pipe manufacturers claim that thptr pipe can
easily mast tfie infiitratiaa allowance of 100 gpd/inch of pipe dtataeter/ini-Lai
fllao, this i» the Mrimim allowable by the Arkansas Department of Health
for PMC sewer pipe. We pan see no reaacn to require another imt-ftrtal to
meet a lesaer £?»ctfication. Vfe have bia other projects with thia Infil-
t-T7iHfi> requirement and have not received any questions or crepTainiEa from
oontractors. In our professional opinion, it makes good sense t» u*a this
requirranent in the lakeview System and cannot understand vby it is being
questioDed.
We do not fXJBBiflR'r exdltration a potential problem given proper, construc-
tion techniques and BDdern materialfl. The pipe will be bedded with a
Tiriniamt of 4-' of suitable material beneath the pipe and a root above the
pipe. It might he that we will want to use a sand or other snail particle
size bedding material to tiese areas.
services offered; consulting engineers for civil engineering'projects, soil testing, munieiparwiork.
• 'feasibility studies, land pfenning, subdivisions, surveying
-------
Hoger N. Jungclaus
Page 2
November 17, 1978
4. It would be most difficult in our opinion to serve the Forest Shores and
Leisure Hills areas without an additional pucrp station if the suggestion
were followed. We see no basis for the concern about the so-called "sink
holes" and do not consider them an obstacle to the oontruction of the
system.
5- There is no doubt that the proposed sewer in the Gaston Road area can be
re-aligned and re-routed to avoid the objects mentioned.
6. We had previously investigated the probability of locating the treatment
plant across Bruce Creek as proposed. The main objection to this is lack
of suitable access to the area. An expensive structure would be required
to provide the needed all-weather access. "Die proposed treatment process
will require a site of approximately eight (8) acres, there does not appear
to be adequate suitable area across Bruce Creek to meet this requirement.
We did consider the trickling filter as an alternative in the facility
plans and it did not prove the-Host costo-effective system.
7. The user charge planned for the Lakeview Sewer System IB based on the volume
of wastewater discharged into the sytem. Since there are no industrial users
and the wastewater composition will be fairly miform from customer to
customer, we feel like this is the most realistic approach. Ifcwaver, if
you assume that an average household in Lakeview would contribute in the
range of 5,000 to 6,000 gallons of wastewater per month, the reiult would
be very similar to that considered in the Draft ECS. Therefore, we feel
like the method of allocating cost contained in the Draft ETS is probably
as reasonable and easily understood as any method for the preliminary
stages of the project.
I trust that this will provide you with the information you need. However, ifcttere
are any questions or if additional information is needed, please feel free to call
on me.
Sincerely yours.
JWHiplc
Enclosure
cc: Honomblg Claude Shonkwiler •
Mayor, Lakeview
W. Martin, P.E.
-------
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
C-05-0441-01-0
REVISED NOVEMBER, 1978
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Description
Aerated Lagoon
Pump Station
Clarifier
Sand Filters
Disinfection
Equipnent Building
Fencing
Approximate
Quantity
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
2,500 lin.ft.
Unit
Price
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
3.00 l.f.
Total Cost
$ 175,000.00
25,000.00
75,000.00
125,000.00
40,000.00
65,000.00
7,500.00
'^rOAri. C1ACI 4"if)r T
^tf ^.o*wer^A Ti
-------
PRELIMINARY ODST ESTIMATE
LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
C-05-0441-01-0
REVISED NOVEMBER, 1978
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Slfl
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Description
12" Sewer
10" Sewer
8" Sewer
4" Sewer Service
Standard Sewer Manhole
Extra Depth Manhole
12" C.I- Sewer Pipe
10" C.I. Sewer Pipe
8" C.I. Sewer Pipe
6" Force Main
8" i'orce Main
Sewer Connection Wye
Highway Crossing
Rock Excavation
Bedding Material
Replace Paving
Class "A" Concrete
Class "B" Concrete
Lift Station
Approximate
Quantity
16,500 lin.ft.
22,000 lin.ft.
68,000 lin.ft.
7,500 lin.ft.
280 each
100 feet
800 lin.ft.
500 lin.ft.
2,000 lin.ft.
2,500 lin.ft.
8,800 lin.ft.
380 each
4 each
10,000 cu.yds.
10,000 cu.yds.
600 sq.yds.
75 cu.yds.
75 cu.yds
4 each
Treatment Plant
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Unit
Price
15.00 l.f.
12.00 l.f.
10.00 l.f.
5.00 l.f.
500.00 each
50.00 ft
20.00 l.f.
18.00 l.f.
15.00 l.f.
5.00 l.f.
8.00 l.f.
25.00 each
3,000.00 each
15.00 cu.yds.
7.00 cu.yds.
10.00 sq.yd.
150.00 cu.yd.
75.00 cu.yd.
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Total Cost
$ 247,500.00
264,000.00
680,000.00
37,500.00
140,000.00
5,000.00
16,000.00
9,000.00
30,000.00
12,500.00
70,400.00
9,500.00
12,000.00
150,000.00
70,000.00
6,000.00
11,250.00
5,625.00
80,000.00
580,000-00
$ 2,436.275.00
(continued)
-------
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST .... $ 2,436,275.00
(from previous page)
Contingency .... 240,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . $ 2,676,275.00
Engineering Costs:
• Design .... $ 150,000.00
Construction Observation .... 107,000.00"
Legal and Administrative Costs .... 15,000.00
Land and Right-of-Way .... 30,000.00
Interest During Construction .... 50,000.00
TOTAL PEDOECT COST .... $ 3.,028,275.00
-------
October 16, 1978
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Max Hall, President
Engineering Services, Inc.
214 W. Emma
Springdale, AK 72764
Dear Mr. Hall:
In responding to comments on the Draft EIS for Lakeview, Arkansas Waste-
water Treatment Facilities, your assistance in answering the following
questions would be appreciated:
1. What arc the updated cost estimates for the project including
dechlorination (or ozonation), as well as inflation to the
projected time of construction? Particularly, what are any
revised estimates for the collection system including the
amount and cost of rock excavation, and costs of the various
types of sewer line installations? It has been suggested that
comparative costs of the Bull Shoals' system be considered in
the update.
2. What is the design basis of the infiltration allowance of 100
gpd/inch of pipe diameter/mile compared to the 200 gallon
criteria often used for new sewer pipe?
3. Should soil be recommended for backfill around the sewers in
rocky areas near Bull Shoals Lake as a mitigative measure
against exfiltration?
4. Please comment on the suggestion that the entire length of the
lakeshore collector be sloped toward Glen Cove to avoid crossing
sink holes and reduce the length of force main required to
reach the line on Highway 178.
5. Can the alignment of the proposed sewer in the Gaston Rd. area
be altered to avoid the playground and airplane hanger and
tie-down areas at Gaston Resort?
6. What is the feasibility of locating the treatment plant across
Bruce Creek to reduce impacts on proposed residential development
-------
Mr. Max Hall, President
October 16, 1978
Page 2
on and near the currently proposed plant site? The developer
has also suggested trickling filter rather than lagoon treatment
as well as methane and fertilizer resource recovery. Your
comments?
7. The Draft EIS used a method of allocating user costs based
upon the number of residential arid commmercial units (including
individual motel units) and equivalents for the recreational
areas. Does this method reasonably reflect residential user
cost estimates in view of the rate structure and cost recovery
plans being considered for Lakeview?
Thank you for any assistance you can provide on these matters, and let
me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
SVEKDRUP & PARCEL AMD ASSOCIATES, Inc.
H
Roger N. Jungclaus, PE
cc:-*"Mr. Paul Bergstrom, EPA
-------
-------
LITERATURE CITED AND OTHER REFERENCES CONSULTED
AOU Check-list of North American Birds, American Ornithologists
Union, Fifth edition, Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD.,
1957.
Arkansas Department of Health:
, 1972; "Septic Tank Systems," Bulletin No. 9.
, 1977; "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to
Sewage Disposal Systems and Installers,"
(as provided in Act 402 - Individual
Sewage Disposal Act of 1977).
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology:
1977; "Committee Chairman's Memorandum on EPA
Program Requirements, Memorandum No. 77-8,
Hannah, H. G., August 22, 1977.
1976a; Water Quality Inventory Report.
1976b; White River Basin Plan, Section 303(e).
1975; Arkansas Water Quality Standards.
1973; Regulation 4 - To Require, a Disposal
Permit for Real Estate Subdivisions
in Proximity to Lakes and Streams in
Arkansas.
1972; Pollution Control Survey of Lakes Norfork,
Bull Shoals and Greers Ferry.
Bailey, J., and Wallman, H., 1971; "A Survey of Household
Waste Treatment Systems," Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal, p. 2349, December, 1971.
162
-------
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories, 1968; Water Quality Criteria
Data Book Vol. 3. "Effects of Chemicals on Aquatic Life," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control
Research Series. EPA-18050 GWV05/71, May, 1971.
Bedinger, M. S. and Sniegocki, R. T. , Summary Appraisals
of the Nation's Groundwater Resources - Arkansas-White-Red
Region, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 813-H.
Black, J. D., 1940; The Distribution of the Fishes of Arkansas,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Brett, J. R., 1956; "Some Principles in the Thermal Requirements
of Fishes," Buart. Biol. Rev. 31: (2), 75-87.
Brown, J. D. , et al_, 1967; "Some Physico-Chemical and Biological
Aspects of Three Cold Tailwaters in Northern Arkansas,"
Proceedings 21st Annual Cont., SE Association Game and Fish
Commission, pp 369-381.
Buchanan, T., 1974; Threatened Native Fishes of Arkansas,
66-105, in: Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Dept.
of Planning, 248 pp.
Buchanan, T., 1973; Key to the Fishes of Arkansas, Arkansas
Game and Fish Commission.
Burt, W. H., and Grossenheider, R. P., 1964; A Field Guide
to the Mammals, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co.
163
-------
Cashner, R. C., 1967; A Survey of the Fishes of the Cold
Tailwaters of the White River in Northwestern Arkansas;
and a Comparison of the White River with Selected Warm-
water Streams, unpublished M.S. thesis, Univ. of Arkansas.
CH2M Hill, Inc., 1977; Non-Point Source Report For Jefferson
County, Missouri Areawide Waste Treatment Management (208)
Study, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council.
Cotteral, J. A., Jr., and Norris, D. P., 1969; "Septic
Tank Systems," Journal Sanitary Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 95, p 715,
August, 1969.
Engineering Services, Inc:
1976a; Facility Plan for Lakeview, Arkansas
Wastewater Collection and Treatment System.
1976b; Environmental Assessment for Lakeview,
Arkansas Wastewater Collection and Treatment
System.
Environmental Impact Center, Inc. , 1975; Secondary Effects
of Public Investments in Highways and Sewers, Prepared for
EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Council
on Environmental Quality.
Environmental Protection Agency:
, 1978; Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977, 430/9-77-013,
January, 1978.
164
-------
, 1977a; Alternatives for Small Wastewater
Treatment Systems
Volume 1: On-Site Disposal/Septage
Treatment and Disposal
Volume 2: Pressure Sewers/Vacuum Sewers
Volume 3: Cost/Effectiveness Analysis
, 1977b; Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Albuquerque, New Mexico Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Region VI.
, 1977c; "Funding of Sewage Collection System
Projects," Costle, Douglas M.,
Program Requirements Memorandum
No. 77-8, June 21, 1977.
, 1975a; Evaluation of Land Application Systems, No.
EPA-430/9-75-001, March, 1975.
, 1975b; Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land
Application, No. EPA-430/9-75-003, June,
1975.
_, 1975c; Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan.
_, 1975d; "Comparative Toxicity of Sewage—Effluent
Disinfection to Freshwater Aquatic Life,"
Arthur, J. W., et a!., Water Pollution
Control Resource Series.
, 1976a;
, 1976b;
Disinfection of Wastewater, Task Force
Report, EPA-430/9-75-012, March, 1976.
Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works, EPA-430/9-76-003,
January, 1976.
Fry, F. E. J., 1948; "Temperature Relations of Salmonoids."
Proc. Canad. Com. Freshwater Fish. Res. , 1st Meet., Appendix
"D".
165
-------
Fry, F. E. J., Brett, J. R., and Clawson, G. H., 1942;
"Lethal Limits of Temperature for Young Goldfish," Rev.
Canad. Biol., 1: 50-66.
Gipson, P. S., Sealander, J. A., and Dunn, J. E., 1974;
"The Taxonomic Status of Wild Cam's in Arkansas," Sys. Zool.
23: 1, 1-11.
Halberg, H. N., 1975; "Use of Water in Arkansas," Water
Resources Summary No. 9, U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation
with the Arkansas Geological Commission.
Harvey, M. J., 1976; "Endangered Chiroptera of the Southeastern
United States," Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the
Association of Game and Fish Commissions, 429-432.
Hines, M. S., 1965; "Water Supply Characteristics of Selected
Arkansas Streams," Water Resources Circular No. 9, U.S.
Geological Survey in Cooperation with the Arkansas
Geological Commission.
Howell, A. H., 1911; "Birds of Arkansas," Biological Survey
Bulletin #38, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gov't. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1977; Guidelines
for the Preparation of Facilities Plans for Unsewered
Communities.
James, F. C., 1974; "Threatened Native Birds of Arkansas,"
pp 107-122, in: Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Arkansas
Department of Planning, 248 pp.
166
-------
Jones, J. R. E., 1964; Fish and River Pollution, London,
Butterworths.
Keener, R., 1973; Septic Tank Contamination of Ground Water
in Northwest Arkansas, University of Arkansas.
Lamonds, A. G., 1972; Water Resources Reconnaissance of the Ozark
Plateaus Province, Northern Arkansas, Atlas HA-383, U.S. Geological
Survey.
Means, Robert S. Inc., 1978; Building Construction Cost Data,
36th Edition.
Merkens, J. C., 1958; "Studies on the Toxicity of Chlorine and
Chloramines to the Rainbow Trout," Water Waste Treatment, J
7:150-151.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1971; "Chlorinated
Municipal Waste Toxicities to Rainbow Trout and Fathead
Minnows," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. Water Pollution Control Research Series EPA-18050GZZ
10/71, October, 1971.
Nebel, C., et a_]_. , 1973; "Ozone Disinfection of Industrial-
Municipal Secondary Effluents," Jour. Water Poll. Control
Fed. 45, 1973.
Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District:
_, 1974; Baxter County Water and Sewer Plan.
, 1977 and 1974; Socio-Economic Profile.
_, 1977; Lakeview Arkansas Comprehensive Development
Plan, Lakeview Planning Commission.
167
-------
Office of Endangered Species, 1977; "Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants," Federal Register, Vol. 142, No. 135.
Otis, R. J., et aL, 1977; On-Site Disposal of Small Wastewater
Flows, University of Wisconsin.
Peterson, R. T., 1947; A Field Guide to the Birds, Second
Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Pfitzer, D. W., 1962; "Investigations of Waters Below Large
Storage Reservoirs in Tennessee," Dingle-Johnson Report, ;
Prof. F-l-R : 1-255.
Pflieger, W. L., 1971; "A Distributional Study of Missouri
Fishes," Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas,
20(3) : 225-570.
Plunkett, T. W., and Mitchell, D., 1974; An Evaluation of
Selected Existing Septic Tank Systems in Northwest Arkansas,
University of Arkansas.
Ransom, M. D., et aJL , 1975; Wastewater Disposal by Septic
Tank Systems in Selected Soils of Northwest Arkansas, University
of Arkansas.
Reagan, D. P., 1974; "Threatened Native Amphibians of Arkansas,"
p 93-99, in: Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Ark. Dept. of
Planning, 248 pp.
Reagan, D. P., 1974; "Threatened Native Reptiles of Arkansas,"
101-105, in: Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Department
of Planning.
168
-------
Rogers and Associates, Inc., 1975; Proposed Sanitary Sewerage
Improvements, City of Bull Shoals, Arkansas, Facility Plan
and Environmental Assessment.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K., 1975; Animal Physico1ogy--Adaption and
Environment, Cambridge University Press.
Sealander, J. A., and Gipson, P. S. , 1973; "Status of the
Mountain Lion in Arkansas." Proc. Ark. Acad. of Science
27:38-41.
Sealander, J. A., and Gipson, P. S. , 1974; "Threatened
Native Mammals of Arkansas," 123-127, in: Arkansas
Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Department of Planning,
248 pp.
Sealander, J. A., 1956; " A Provisional Check-list and Key
to the Mammals of Arkansas" (with annotations), American Mid.
Nat. 56:257-96.
Soil Conservation Service, 1961; "Soils Suitable for Septic
Tank Fields," Information Bulletin 243.
Steyermark, J., 1963; Flora of Missouri, Iowa State Univ.
Press, Ames, Iowa.
Tsai, C., 1973; "Water Quality and Fish Life Below Sewage
Outfalls," Trans. Am. Fish Soc. , 102(2) : 281-292.
Tucker, G. E., 1974; "Threatened Native Plants of Arkansas,"
p 39-92, in: Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Department
of Planning, p 248.
169
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
, 1973; Operations and Maintenance Environmental
Statement for Bull Shoals Lake.
, 1946; Geologic Investigation for Bull Shoals
Dam.
U.S. Geological Survey:
_, 1976; Geologic Map of Arkansas.
_, 1976; Water Resources of South Central Missouri
Atlas HA-550.
r, 1976; Water Resources Data for Arkansas.
_, 1975; Flow-Duration and Low-Flow Frequency
Determinations of Selected Arkansas
Streams.
, 1974; State Hydrologic Unit Map - Arkansas.
, 1972; Quadrangle Maps - Bull Shoals and Cotter.
U.S. Public Health Service, 1967; Manual of Septic Tank
Practice, Publication 526.
Wallace, J. R., and Mundi, E. K., 1973; Field Permeability
Measurements in Fractured Rock, Law Engineering Co. Technical
Publication G-6.
Walton, W. C. , 1970; Groundwater Resource Evaluation, McGraw
Hill.
Wheeler, H. E., 1924; The Birds of Arkansas, State Bureau of
Mines, Manufacturers and Agriculture, Little Rock, Arkansas.
170
-------
APPENDIX A - Correspondence
p. - A
-------
r \ • •
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
8OO1 NATIONAL. DRIVE
LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72209
8O1 371-17O1 GEN. OFF.
901 371-1136 AIR DIV.
October 20, 1976
Mr. Jerry W. Martin, P.E.
Engineering Services, Inc.
214 West Emma
Springdale, Arkansas 72764
Dear Mr. Martin:
Re Facility Plan
Lakeview, Arkansas
EPA Project No. C-05-0441-01-0
Your facility for Lakeview has been reviewed. Our comments on
the report are below.
1. Page I/Subsections B.I.a.(3) and (4).
Has the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism committed
itself to connect the Bull Shoals State Park wastewater system
to the proposed project?
2. Page I/NOTE (at bottom of page) 2nd and 3rd Sentences.
Could a reasonable estimate of the wastewater flow be made
from a study of the Lakeview-Midway Water Association water
consumption records?
3. Page 8/Subsection C/Last Paragraph.
Since the volume of sludge will be small and infrequent, has
the possiblity of land application been carefully explored
as opposed to burying it in a highly fractured limestone
area?
4. Page 18/Subsection 2.
What controls will be taken to prevent illegal tieons before
the works are finished?
5. Appendix "B".
a. Department records indicate 250 mg/1 is a more favorable
BODc design concentration for communities in Arkansas. Please
revise your treatment units with this figure in mind.
b. Rapid sand filters without chemical precipitation have a
poor track record in Arkansas. Because of this the Department
casts a reluctant eye towards them. Request you please recon-
sider your design using intermittent sand filters. A loading
rate of 5 to 10 GaT/SF/Day is acceptable to the Department.
At least three beds and perferably four need to be considered
to insure flexibility of operation,
•ih
-------
Mr. Jerry W. Martin, P.E.
October 20, 1976
Page Two
c. Since White River below Bull Shoals Dam is a trout
stream, dechlorination of the effluent after disinfection
must be considered.
6. Environmental Assessment/Appendix "C'VArcheological Report/
Pages 4 and 5/Recommendations.
The recommendations of this report need to be closely
followed.
7. What is the estimated manpower requirement for proper
operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater
system?
8. The facility plan must include a "User Charge Schedule"
and "Cost Recovery System" to show that sufficient revenues
will be collected by the community to pay its matching
share plus the ability to exercise an effective operation
and maintenance program.
9. Have the citizens of the community been notified that
abandoned septic tanks must be filled in with gravel?
Return your answers as an addendum to be attached to the facility
plan.
Sincerely,
Martin H. Roy
Engineer
Water Pollution Control Division
MHR:nrt
cc/Thomas Bercher, Asst. Project Consultant
2A
-------
ADDENDUM NO. 1
FACILITY PLAN
LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER COLLECTION
&
TREATMENT SYSTEM
LAKEVTEW, ARKANSAS
C-05-0441-01-0
The following information is supplied in reply to the conments contained in
the letter from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology dated
October 20, 1976:
1. Page I/ Subsections B.I.a. (3) and (4)
The Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism has not committed itself to con-
nect the Bull Shoals State Park wastewater system to the proposed project.
The Parks Department Engineer has verbally indicated interest in connecting
the State Park to the proposed system. This was followed up by a letter to the
Department of Parks and Tourism dated January 9, 1976. No official reply was
received to that letter.
A copy of the Facility Plan was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Parks
and Tourism on October 19, 1976 for their review and ccmnent. As of this date,
no comments have been received.
2. Page I/ Note (at bottom of page) 2nd and 3rd sentences
An attempt was made to estimate the wastewater flows from a study of the Lake-
view - Midway Water Association records. However, the information provided by
the Water Association resulted in water consumption figures which, in our opin-
ion, were unreasonably low. Close examination of their records, revealed a large
number of customers who were simply paying a minimum bill and were not even con-
nected to the water system. We feel like the figures presented on page 1 of the
Facility Plan are much more accurate.
3. Page 8/ Subsection C/ Last Paragraph
Current plans call for burial of sludge at the treatment plant site. It is
aniticipated that the soil will be silt and clay to a suitable depth in this
particular area along the White River. In the event soil conditions preclude
the safe burial of sludge, land application under controlled conditions may
be utilized.
4. Page 18/ Subsection 2
We do not anticipate a problem with illegal tieons prior to completion of;the
project. Such unathorized connections are clearly a violation of Article IV,
Section I of the proposed Sewer Use Ordinance and this will be strictly enforced
by the Town of Lakeview.
3A
-------
- 2 -
5. Appendix "B"
A. Appendix "B" has been revised based on 250 mg/1 influent BOD-.
B. The use of intermittant sand filters was considered. Based on a loading
rate of 10 GAL/SF/DAY, a minimum of 30,000 square feet of filter area
would be required. When comparing the cost of such an installation to the
cost of rapid sand filters, the decision was made to use rapid sand filters.
The unit processes of the treatment plant were purposely selected so that
chemical precipitation could be included if necessary. In view of the
comment from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, such
chemical precipitation facilities will be included intially in the treat-
ment plant design.
C. The need for dechlorination of the effluent after disinfection was ser-
iously considered. However, with the minimum flows available in the
receiving stream, the White River, it was felt that adequate dilution of
any chlorine residual would be provided so as not to adversly affect the
trout waters.
According to information furnished by the Little Rock District Corps of
Engineers, the minimum projected flow in the White River below Bull Shoals
Dam is 150 cfs. The lowest recorded flow since the completion of Bull
Shoals Dam was 250 cfs.
Using the 150 cfs figure and assuming that our maximum effluent discharge
will be approximately 310 gpm with a chlorine residual of 2 ppm, a chlorine
dosage in the stream of less than 0.01 ppm would result. This would be under
the most extreme conditions.
6. Environmental Assessment/ Appendix "C"/ Archeological Report/ Pages 4 and
5/ Recommendations
The recommendations of this report will be closely followed.
7. It is estimated that it will require one full time and one part-time person
to properly operate and maintain the proposed system.
8. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VT, the "User
Charge Schedule" and "Cost Recovery System" do not have to be completed until
midway of the Step II program.
9. The citizens of the corrmunity have not as yet been officially notified that
abandoned septic tank systems must be filled in with gravel. The sewer use
ordinance will be amended to include this requirement.
November 16, 1976
Martin, P.E.
;iNEEB|ENG SERVICES, INC.
-------
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
8OO1 NATIONAL DRIVE
LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722O0
BO1 371-17O1 GEN. OFF.
SOI 371-1136 AIR DIV.
Becember 9, 1976
Mayor Claude U. Shonkwoler
Lalser
P.O. Box A.F.
Lakevlew, Arkansas 72642
Dear Mayor Shonkwoler:
We have received your 201 Facility Plan and have forwarded to
EPA, Dallas, The basic concepts of the plan have been approved,
however the STP will require dechlorlnatlon prior to discharge.
The basis for this decision 1s report number EPA-430/9-75-012
March, 1976, titled Disinfection of Wastewater. Dechlorlnatlon
will be required because of the quality of the stream Into which
the city will discharge.
It Is also necessary that we be formally notified of any changes 1n
signatory authority.
If we may be of further assistance please advise.
Sincerely,
~ V
Tom Bercher
Asst. Project Consultant
TB/ch
cc: Jerry W. Martin/ Engineering Services, Inc.
-------
Djvid Pryor
Govtrnor
William 1C. Henderson
Dintlor
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF PARKS &TOURISM
PARKS DIVISION
1510 Broadway • Uttfc Rock, Arkansas 72202 • Telephone (501) 371-1191
January 25, 1977
Ridurd Duvk's
Dirtttor of Stait Patkt
Mr. Jerry W. Martin, P.E.
Engineering Services, Inc.
214 West Emma
Springdale, Arkansas 72764
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for forwarding a copy of the plan for the proposed Lakeview
Wastewater Collection and Treatment System near Bull Shoals State Park. I
will forward this on to our Planning and Development section.
We feel that it is usually advantegous for one of our state parks to
tie on to a local waste water system if possible. However, you may know
that we have recently completed a sewer plant at Bull Shoals and we will
have to study the situation further and get cost quotations from the City
of Lakeview before we make a firm commitment for Bull Shoals State Park
to tie in to the system.
Thank you again for sending the plan.
Sincerely,
RWDrqmg
cc: Bob Moody
Richard W. Davies
Director, Arkansas State Parks
6A
-------
COMMISSIONERS
GUY RENTER
CHAIRMAN
CHARLESTON
DR. RALPH H. BOWERS
VICE CHAIRMAN
HARRISON
MICHAEL F. MAHONY
EL DORADO
WM. F. WRIGHT
NORTH LITTLE ROCK
HENRY MOORE III
TEXARKANA
KANEASTER HODGES, JR.
NEWPORT
HAYS T. SULLIVAN
BURDETTE
DR. P. M. JOHNSTON
FAYETTEVILLE
ANDREW H. HUUir, Director
Arkansas
Game and Fish Commission
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
October 4, 1977
Mr. Roga Stojeba
Planning Division
Sverdrup Parcel and Associates
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63101
Dear Mr. Stojeba:
At your request we are enclosing temperature data
from our continuous recording thermometers located at
Cotter and approximately two miles upstream from Shipps
Ferry on the White River. This data includes a summari-
zation of one full year of recordings from the Cotter
Station during 1975. It reflects the daily water tem-
perature extremes, the variation between daily high and
low temperatures, and daily average temperatures. In
addition, copies of several of the weekly temperature
charts are enclosed. These particular charts were
selected from weeks during this summer period in which
there were extreme high temperatures recorded on the
White River. These charts are from both the Cotter
Station and the Courtney Station (above Shipps Ferry).
You will note from the 1977 charts that there were
several days during this summer in which water tempera-
tures reached 75° or above during the daylight hours.
Temperatures of this extreme ae very critical to our
trout program that exists in the White River. It is
therefore obvious that with such marginal temperatures
that regularly occur in the White River as a result of
low generation from Bull Shoals dam, any additional warm-
ing of this water from effluent releases of any type could
have a severe affect on the multi-million dollar trout
7A
-------
Mr. Roga Stojeba
Page 2
October 4, 1977
fishery that exists in the White River. We would there-
fore be very concerned about any additional water releases
that could possibly increase water temperatures at any
point on the White River between Bull Shoals dam and Sylamore,
Hopefully, this information will provide you with the
necessary data to make the analysis that you desire concern-
ing the city sewage effluent from the Lakeview area below
Bull Shoals dam.
If you need additional information that you feel we have
on hand, please advise us and it will be furnished to you.
William E. Keith, Chief
Fisheries Division
WEK/amcg
Enc.
-------
Bex 90, Route 1
Lakeviev
Arkansas 726^-2
October 12, 1977
Mr. Roger N. Jungolaua, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 Norht 12th Boulevard
St. Louis
Missouri 83101
Dear Mr. Jungclaust
Mr. MeElroy joins me in saying that lit was both
pleasant and constructive to meet with you last week*
Since our conwersations, £ have followed up briefly
on per capita water usage in Edgewood Bay Subdiviison.
Since becoming Water Commissioner a couple of years ago,
Mr* Martin Feil has been totalling the individual meter
readings to obtain a total water usage figure for each
quarter. As expected, the summer quarters reflect heavy
lawn and garden watering* For the first and ftaoth calendar
year quarters when lawn and garden use would be minimal,
the total usage ranged from slightly below to slightly over
one million gallons. On the basis of 91 days in the
quarter, approximately 90 home in the subdivision, and
two persons per average household the average water use
figures very close to 60 gallons per person per day.
Even, in the winter quarters some of the water usage
will not find its way into the waste water disposal system.,
Some will have been used for car washing, houseplant water-
ing, humidification and some lawn and garden watering „
This will be offset in greater or less degree by increased
use of laundry and bathwater in the summer quarters. If you
have not already done so, you can and probably should get
more detailed and official data from Mr. Feil.
In any case the l^K) gallon per capita figure adduced
by Engineering Associates, Incv has very questionable
antecedents amd will certainly be challenged at the Public
Hearing on the BUS. It is difficult to see how the present-
ly proposed plant could qualify for Federal funding under
existing EPA guidelines.
We remain willing to help in any way we can.
Sincerely yours,
9 A A- W, Weitkaap
-------
Box 90, Route 1
Lakeview
Arkansas 726^2
October 21*, 1977
Mr. Roger NV Jtmgclaus
Sverdrup A Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis
Missouri 63101
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
I am attaching a copy of a letter to EPA requesting
information on some recently publicized changes in their
philosophy.
I will grasp this opportunity to comment on your
statement that there arc other ways to control population
density. After you studied the Bull Shoals Environmental
Impact document, I am sure that youmted that the proponents
of sewer* relied heavily, if not totally, on the concept
that sewers provided the only viable route to enhanced
population density and to the total exploitation of other-
wise unbuildable lands:.
Fortunately for the consideration of alternatives,
the stated policies of EPA are currently veering toward
solution of actual, wartemter disposal problems rather
than marl mixing the dispensation, of Federal ftinds.
I look forward to seeing your report.
Sincerely yours,
A.. W. Weitkamp (/
10 A
-------
hall, p.e., r.l.s.,
-Resident
jerry martin, p.e.,
vice-president
-> 1
214 west emma
sprlngdale, arkansas 72764
telephone 501-751-3733
October 26, 1977
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
sen lor vice-president
garyl.king,
secretary-treasurer
Mr. Roger Jungclaus
Sverdrup & Parcel
800 North 12th Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
Re: Wastewater Collection
& Treatment Facilities
Lakeview, Arkansas
C-05-0441-01-0
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
Attached is the cost breakdown for eliminating the State
Park and Corps of Engineers Park from the proposed sewer
project at Lakeview, Arkansas. The costs shown reflect
the cost necessary to provide sanitary sewer service to
Bull Shoals State Park and the Lakeview use area of the
Corps of Engineers. If these two (2) facilities were
eliminated from the project these amounts could be sub-
tracted from the total project amount.
In regards to the cost per person of the proposed project
this could be obtained from the information in the Envi-
ronmental Assessment and the Facility Plan. Based on the
projected population equivalent for the year 1980 (1,605)
the cost per capita would be $981.00 ($1,574,825.00 T
1,605). If you subtract out the cost for eliminating the
State Park and Corps of Engineers Park ($120,400.00 +
50,100.00 = $170,500.00) and the population equivalent
from these two (2) facilities (230 + 250 = 480) the cost
per person would be $1,248.00 ($1,404.325.00 4 1,125) .
I trust that this is the information which you desire. If
I can be of any 'further assistance, please dp not hesitate
to call upon me.
Sincerely yours,
JWM/csm
' '•-; & *•'- o^YF^ft?' '•; X'iWi-sv^sSj'jBKJ
.
Jerify W. Martin, P.
Claude Shonkwiler
serviees offered: consulting engineers for civil engineering projects, soil testing, municipal work.
feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying
-------
PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN
STATE PARK AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS
IAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
C-05-0441-01-0
BULL SHOALS CORPS OF ENGINEERS
STATE PARK LAKEVIEW USE AREA
Distribution System $ 48,200.00 $17,000.00
Treatment Plant 45,000.00 21,000.00
Contingency 9,000.00 4,000.00
Total Construction $102,200.00 $42,000.00
Engineering Cost
Design 6,600.00 2,700.00
construction Observation 4,100.00 1,700.00
Legal & Administrative Costs 1,000.00 500.00
Land & Right-of-Way 2,500.00 1,200.00
Interest During Construction 4,000.00 ' 2,000.00
TOTAL COST $120,400.00 $50,100.00
12 A
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POST OFFICE BOX 8«7
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 722O3
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
SWLED-PV 7 November 1977
Mr. Roger Jungclaus, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
As requested in your 27 October 1977 letter, a copy of our 3 February 1976
letter to Engineering Services, Inc. is inclosed. There has been no
further change or development concerning the Corps making a commitment for
using the proposed Lakeview system. Also, we have no revised estimates for
wastewater flows at the Lakeview Park.
With regard to your question concerning the Norfork lagoon system, we do
not believe it is an acceptable long term arrangement. From a long term
viewpoint, we believe that other alternatives must be considered to
provide for waterborne restrooms and showers. Possible alternatives are
providing central treatment systems for individual parks or connecting to
regional or local sewage treatment systems.
Planning for Corps recreational facilities is a continuing.process and is
responsive to changes in laws and policies. Currently, our policies
provide: (1) Except for needed sanitary facilities to comply with State
and Federal laws, new construction of recreation facilities at existing
projects will be by cost sharing with a non-Federal public entity which
agrees to assume operation and maintenance responsibilities. (2) User
fee funds may be used to convert vault to waterborne restrooms and to
provide for showers. When a decision is made to construct the Lakeview
system and the cost for our use of the system is determined, we will
evaluate our priority needs with regard to funds and make a decision
concerning connection to the system.
13 A
-------
SWLED-PV
Mr. Roger Jungclaus, P.E.
7 November 1977
Our financial participation in the proposed system would be limited to a
reasonable portion (in proportion to the Lakeview Park sewage flow) of
the first cost of the new plant. If this proportion method was used, then
we would not be able to pay a monthly user fee. I hope this is sufficient
clarification for your purpose.
Sincerely yours,
1 Incl
As stated
,
-------
ENGINEERING SERVICES, iNC.
— hall, p.e., r.l.s.,
Resident
jerry martin, p.e.,
vice-president
sprtngd*!®, Kansas 72764
telephone 901-751-8733
December 1, 1177
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
senior vice-president
gary I. king,
secretary-treasurer
Mr. Roger N. Jungclaus, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Assoc., Inc.
800 North 13th Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63101
Res
Wastewater Collection &
treatment System
Lakeview, Arkansas
C-05-0441-01-0
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
Attached as you requested is the cost estimate for connecting
the proposed Lakeview Sewer System to the planned Town of
Bull Shoals system. The estimate includes only the facilities
needed to transport the wastewater to the site of the Bull
Shoals treatment plant and does not include the cost of ex-
panding that treatment plant to handle the Lakeview wastewater,
Also, if this alternative were chosen, approximately 4,100
feet of the proposed 12 inch outfall could be eliminated with
a resultant cost reduction of approximately $40,000.00.
I have also attached a copy of our Preliminary User Charge
Analysis which I think will provide you with the information
you desire on the cost breakdown of the project on the basis
of the monthly service charge. This proposed user charge
system has not been approved by the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology or the Environmental Protection
Agency as we were instructed that it would not be required
until Step II. However, it is the guideline which we are
using in discussing monthly service charges.
In reference to Item 1 of Addendum No. 1 to the Facility Plan,
attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard W. Davies, s
Director, Arkansas State Parks which is the only official
correspondence we have received from the Arkansas Department
of Parks and Tourism.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
a
services of feted:
consulting engineers for civil engineering projects, soil testing, municipal work,
feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying
-------
r
- 2 -
Please let me know If there are any questions concerning
this material or if I may be of any further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
JWM/csm
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Claude Shonkwiler
Mayor, Town of Lakeview
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution
Control & Ecology
Mr. Steve Burkett
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
Jerffy
W. Martin, P.E.
services offered; consulting engineers,^ircivUtn0ine0ring projects, soil testing, municipal
' feasibility studies, larid otanrtina, subdivisions, survevlna
-------
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
for
CONNECTING THE PROPOSED LAKEVIBW SEWER SYSTEM
to
BULL SBDALS
C-05-0441-01-0
APPROX. JKTT TOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE COST
1 Punp Station 1 ea. L.S. $ 40,000.00
2 8" Ductile Iron Force Main 16,000 l.f. $ 9.00 144,000.00
3 8" River Crossing 1,000 l.f. 25.00 25,000.00
4 Rock Excavation 100 yd3 13.50 1,350.00
5 Bedding 200 yd3 7.00 1,400.00
6 Concrete Encasement 15 yd 50.00 750.00
7 Air Relief Valves 2 ea. 500.00 1,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST .... $213,500.00
17 A
-------
PRELIMINARY USER CHARGE ANALYSIS
LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM
LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
C-05-0441-01-0
I. ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE POST
A. Loan Payment (Based on 40 yr. loan, 5%, $400,000 $24,000.00
B. Operation and Maintenance of Treatment Plant 20,000.00
C. Operation and Maintenance of Collection System 20,000.00
TOTAL ....... $64,000.00
Add 10% Coverage ...... 6,400.00
TOTAL YEARLY REVENUE NEEDED TO MEET EXPENSES . . . $70,400.00
II. PROPOSED USER CHARGE SYSTEM
A. Cost per 1,000 gallons of wastewater
$70,400.00 yr.
(150,000 gallons)(365 day/yr) = $0.0012858/gallon
or $1.2858/1,000 gallons
B. PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
WASTEWATER VOLUME COST
First 5,000 gallons $6.50 minimum
All over 5,000 gallons $1.30 per 1,000 gallons
C. TYPICAL MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES
WASTEWATER VOLUME CHARGE
5,000 gallons $ 6.50
7,000 gallons 9.10
10,000 gallons 13.00
15,000 gallons 19.50
ISA
-------
(hall, p.e., r.l.s.,
president
jerry martin, p.e.,
vice-president
ENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
214west@mma
sprlngdale, arkansas 72764
telephone 501-751-8733
January 10, 1978
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
senior vice-president
gary I. king,
secretary-treasurer
Mr. Roger N. Jungclaus, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Assoc*,. inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63101
Dear Mr. Jungclauss
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated December 22,
1977 concerning the Lakeview Wastewater Collection and
Treatment System. The answers to your questions are as
follows:
1) Our estimated cost for the project is $1,574,825.00.
We have rounded this off to $1,600,000.00 in our
cost analysis and have assumed that 75% of this will
come from the EPA grant. It is true that certain
items will be ineligible for EPA grant assistance;
a) Land and right-of-way; b) 4" sewer service line.
By subtracting these items from the total project
cost, the EPA grant would be $1,146,337.50 leaving
$428,487.50 to be paid by the Town of Lakeview. I
do not know where the figures came from that were
in EPA's Notice of Intent for an EIS. However, the
final figures will depend upon the cost estimates
developed after completion of the final construction
plans and specifications.
We were advised by EPA early in Step I that the user
charge data would not be required until Step II.
Therefore, we have not spent a lot of time trying td
refine the figures. We plan on attempting to obtain
additional grants from other sources to help keep
the Town's cost within reason.
2) In regards to the cost for the pumping station to
pump from the lagoons to the clarifier, this item
apparently was omitted from the cost estimate. An
additional $30,000.00 should be added to cover this
item.
NSLiLTING ENGINEERS
services offered: consulting engineers for civil engineering 'projects, soil testing, municipal work,
feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying
-------
- 2 -
3)
Concerning the loading on the sand filters, we will
be pumping from the aerated lagoon into the settling
tank at a rate approximately equal to the average
flow baaed on a 16 hour day, or about 312.5 gpm.
The sand filtration system will have two separate
filters each capable"of handling the 312.5 gpm flow
a-t- = .1na>*-i nrr r\f 5 '•n-rni /-f+• 2 ("hir- r>/-vcj+- OH-h i ma-he waff
at a loading of 5 gpm/ft
based on this system.
Our cost estimate was
4) We have not developed any cost figures for dechlor-
ination* We are studying the possibility of using
another ffieans of disinfection, such as ozone treat-
ment* However, we have not made a decision. In
fact* we had planned on this decision until we got
into Step II.
The plant as proposed in the Facility Plan has the
capability of chemical precipitation.
Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.
Sincerely yours
JWM/csm
cc
rry\W. Martin, P.E.
Honorable'Claude Shonkwiler
Mayor, Town of Lakeview
Mr. Steve Burkett
EPA
Mr. C. C. Bennett
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution
Control & Ecology
services offered^ consulting engineers for civil engineering projects, soil testing, munis
feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying
-------
ARKANSAS HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PROGRAM
FIRST STATE CAPITOL • 3OO WEST MARKHAM • LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722O1
March 5, 1976
Mr. Jerry W, Martin, P,E,
Engineering Services, Inc.
214 West Emma
Springdale, Arkansas 72764
Re; Lakeview Sewer System
Baxter County
Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter is written in response to your inquiry of March 3,
1976, regarding properties of architectural and historical
significance in the area of the proposed Lakeview Sewer System.
The professional staff of the Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program has reviewed the available material which pertains to
the area in question. The staff of the Historic Preservation
Program has reported that the proposed Lakeview Sewer System
will not affect any property of architectural or historical
significance.
Sincerely,
' 'BartTey
State Historic Preservation Officer
AB;cm
cc: Fred Kleihauer
21 A
A DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS NATURAL & CULTURAL HERITAGE
-------
Hv. Janry Han in
ainaarl^
Vaat BOM Jtva««a
t**r Ht«
tn«lo**4 is ««t report en tfe* t««t axtavations in th» ar«a of
*^«*«4 t»*it»«»t f»ctlltt«8 for th» Town of L«k«vi«v. We
4«t«*miijjM th*t th«r« »r* probably two separate eitas in th«
an4 that 3BA66* irlll aa tavaraly i«^aet*d by th« construction
•I tM tr»at»«ttt facility. W« faal th* aita ia aligUU for nonination
Rational Kcgiatcr **€ will b« forv«r«ii«t decowantatidn for
4atanaia«tioB wttMn * !•« 4ay«. tfitigatien of tht a«Varaa im»aet
«• tfett aita will W »»e«taary. Tlia autfall an* intarcaptor A linaa
c »« pl«te«* In an «M« ubieh will affaet arehaologieal
it i» poatUU tlutfe avid»»ca ef occupation ia buried
«• *a»a abla to ta»t. V« roa^Miat that wh*n tha conetructton
tvt pUaaiaxt of ta«M Uaa* that wa ba notlfitd, and that
l»»aOmtl»« j>ijf»JNnal W aiartod to W on tk« outlook for avldanca
•I >>a4U>Xttg •aiBpaHom, m«Ji ia «t«M toola, bona, and pottary
Wa at«l«9iw iof tfe« ««lcy im tittHiitttnt thii raport. If wa
*ff ftunm »««nri«ot »lo*M laft ua tMftv.
line«v*ly,
Oiarlat t, ««|i«ity III
22 A
-------
March 22, 1978
Mr. Charles R. Mcdmsey III
Director
Arkansas Archeologlcal Survey
Coordinating Office
University of Arkansas Museum
Fayettevllle, Arkansas 72701
HE: C-t)50 441-0 - Lakevlew, Arkansas
Dear Mr. McGlmsey:
I refer to the meeting 1n your office on March 20, 1978, between you,
Jerry Martin of Engineering Services, and Steve Burkett and Paul Bergstrom
of our EPA office. It 1s our understanding from this meeting that should
the town of Lakevlew wish to use the site as proposed 1n the Facility
Plan for the above referenced project, then a small shift to the west
of the treatment plant location should alleviate the need for a Stage
1 archaeological investigation of this project. If the eastern boundary
of the treatment plant was to approximately coincide with test pit XU
3 as exhibited in your report, then sites 3BA66a and 3BA66b should not
be adversely affected by the construction of the treatment plant. Please
advise us 1f this is your understanding so that we may inform the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation.
Sincerely,
Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator (6ASAF)
bcc: Fred Brunner, S&P
23 A
-------
AHCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Direet* - Charltt R. MeGUwty Ol
SUU Arca*olHi«t - Hester A. Davis
Coordinating Office
University of Arkansas Museum
Fayetteville. Arkansas 72701
Phone: 501-575-3556
April 24, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
EIS Coordinator 6ASAF
Environmental Protection Agency
First International Building
;'i;-',i,1201 Bin Street /'r.
Dallas, TX 73270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in response to your letter of March 22 regarding our under-
standing about the location of the treatment plant for the town of Lakeview,
. Arkansas. A shift in the location would, in light of our current information,
avoid 3BA66a, the prehistoric site we consider eligible for nomination to
. ' the National Register. It is likely that if the eastern boundary of the
plant coincided with test pit XU 3, that there would be minimal or no effect
on 3BA66b, however, we would like to have an opportunity to run auger tests
in the area which would be affected by the new location since we did not
determine the eastern boundary of 3BA66b. To facilitate decisions, the
.Survey will do this testing within the next six to eight days if possible,
at no additional cost to the project, and notify you by phone of the
results.
We have been contacted by Mr. Dean, the landowner, who suggested the :
possibility of the plant being located across Bruce Creek to the east.
.There is a previously recorded site in that location (mentioned in our
report, 3BA45) , which we deem also to be eligible for nomination to the
national- Register, and have indicated that to Mr. Dean. We still believe
that the location west of 3BA66a would be the best for protection of the
resources.
Sincerely,
~l
Charles R. McGimsey III
Director
CRM/lcm
cc: State Planning and Development Clearinghouse
• State Historic Preservation Officer
Engineering Services, Inc.
24 A
WY 2 - 1978
ENV S: ' '.
Th« UnlV«nilV«f Arkonsot it on Equal Opportunity Employer
------- |